In Web 2.0, creators are largely reliant on brand sponsorship and advertising for their income. While creators own their copyrights, the minute we share intellectual property on a social platform, we lose control of it, and we certainly aren’t compensated by the platforms even though they monetize it. The platform Terms-of-Service allow them to use it pretty much as they wish within the platform, and once shared, we have minimal control over how it gets shared onward. Even with content hosted on our own websites — where we have not extended a license to a platform — enforcing our intellectual property rights can be time consuming and costly. 

The blockchain, the foundational technology of Web 3.0, disrupts this paradigm, and promises to return control of  our content to creators and our consumption to consumers. Blockchain powers the transaction via cryptocurrency, manages the ownership /usage rights  to content via NFTs, eliminates the middle layer,  and creates the marketplace whereby both creator and consumer can directly benefit from popularity or scarcity. Today — limited edition digital art. Someday?  First edition novels. Memberships. Limited run video content. 

What does the Web 2.5 onramp look like? What are some of the forces/technologies driving us toward Web 3.0

• Subscription services like Patreon, Substack and Only Fans where consumers can support their favorite content creators  [side note — always pay attention to what the adult industry does as they HAVE to push the envelope to stay ahead of the censors]
• Creator programs within the big platforms (YT, IG, TikTok) to keep creators “in the family”
• Increasing value of first-party audiences (subscribers, website visitors etc) resulting from the anticipated deprecation of the cookie 
• Paypal, Venmo and Zelle make it easier to pay and be paid
• Content management systems which store the content separately from the format in which it is displayed, powering things like RSS that make it easier to share content 
• Podcast directories (Spotify, iTunes, Google) that let us subscribe to our favorite podcast regardless of where it is hosted

All of these things are getting us ready for the paradigm shift. 

We are still very much in the early adopter phase when it comes to Web 3.0, and specifically the period that marketers refer to as the Chasm (Moore, 1991), and the move from early adopters to early majority.  Change is scary, and paradigm shifts even more so. What do we have to address to cross the chasm? 

(Image borrowed from Crossing the Chasm – A Quick Summary)

I think we start with 3 things. 

1. Simplicity — It’s all very complicated, at least to the average consumer. With so much jargon. We need to make things much simpler and easier to understand.

2. Security– We rely on central authority to maintain order as much as, if  not more than, we distrust big business, financial institutions, and governments. The appeal of decentralization is offset by the fear that no one is in charge, that there are no controls. Block chain is its own policing agent but it’s hard for people to understand how. 

3. Sustainability– Blockchain is computationally resource heavy. It needs big computers and lots of electricity to complete the underlying complex calculations that validate transactions. Bitcoin mining (the process of creating new blocks for the Bitcoin blockchain) is well known for its negative environmental impact. Newer currencies use  a different technique, but there is a lot of jargon and everything is a bit obscure. This complexity inevitably leads will lead to consumer confusion,  which means that Providers need to tell their sustainability story clearly and upfront.

The first point — Simplicity – is  the key to crossing the chasm into mainstream adoption.

The post Merging onto the Metaverse – the Creator Economy and Web 2.5 first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

• The shift of content creation from mainstream media as the dominant paradigm to a democratized media landscape where both MSM and content creators are credible sources of information. 
• The accompanying change in “influence” No longer restricted to celebrity spokespersons and mainstream editors and pundits. Consumers began to use their voice to  impact the marketplace – of products and of ideas. These gave rise to influencer marketing, and the expansion of branded content  (FKA advertorial) as a business model to include influencer endorsement.  Authentic consumer endorsement of products and services they use and love, not cookie-cutter broadcasting of marketing message points. 
• Innovations in monetization that allowed independent content creators to reap the benefits of their work — ad networks, influencer marketing agencies and platforms that connect brands with creators, sponsorship communities like Patreon etc.  This led (inevitably) to the rise of the personal brand, and (more interestingly) a rich content landscape that offers a more level playing field for creators to find their niche. 

It wasn’t that there wasn’t interesting stuff happening in the marketplace. It just wasn’t revolutionary, so I focused on the work. And more or less stopped writing on the blog. We are now on the verge of the next paradigm shift, from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 and the Metaverse. I can’t think of a better place to work this out for myself than back here on my blog. 

So what exactly are Web 3.0 and the metaverse? Apart from constantly evolving. 

Web 3.0 refers to a number of technologies and web developments that collectively shift the paradigm from centralized platforms to decentralized, distributed computing (powered by blockchain technology) and interoperability. Cryptocurrency is an example of blockchain use, but there are other applications such as contracts, games and copyright management. Interoperability means that information can be easily shared/accessed across smart applications. Other technologies that are considered part of Web 3.0 – Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality. The end game (and we are quite a ways off) is ubiquity. Everything is interconnected and interoperable. 

The metaverse is a construct that represents the result of all these technologies coming together to create an interoperable, interconnected virtual 3D world that reflects the “real” world while eliminating/reducing barriers. In the metaverse, you can attend a concert in Berlin while sitting in NY. Not just watch a live stream – be there, sitting “next” to your friend who is in Berlin. And you both can buy NFT limited edition concert t-shirts, with or without a real world element.

Exciting stuff. Some things more than others, but lots of stuff to explore. In my next post, I’ll dig into where we are today. 

__

Resource:  Nice roundup of tools and technologies that support the Creator Economy by venture firm SignalFire.

The post Getting ready for the paradigm shift from Web2 to Web3 first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Lil Miquela is a fake “person” who seems real. Until the company that created her revealed that she was a virtual influencer last year in a publicity stunt, her 1.6 million followers presumably thought Miquela Sousa was just another teen Instagram star, not an avatar designed specifically to attract follows and likes. She has partnered with brands like Calvin Klein and Prada, and according to the NY Times, more than 80,000 people stream Lil Miquela’s songs on Spotify every month. She’s also not the only virtual influencer in the market, designed to be the perfect spokesperson. Some are more transparent than others that they are constructs; for example, KFC’s newest Colonel Sanders.

Fashion Ambitionist is a real person whose journey to matrimony, as documented this week on Instagram and pitched to sponsors, can best be described as staged spontaneity. For those that are not familiar, the short story is that her boyfriend is whisking her away for an amazing proposal in a faraway and romantic locale, with a variety of stops along the way. All of which is being documented in her Instagram stories. Supposedly, she is in the dark (at least about the details if not the ultimate objective), with everything being orchestrated by her boyfriend, friends and staff of her website. Maybe. There is a detailed sponsor deck for potential sponsors to evaluate the opportunity, so on some level she has to be in the know. It is after all her brand. In the end, though, it doesn’t matter whether or what she knows. It all feels a bit fake, even though they are undeniably real people and the whole thing is (at least somewhat) entertaining.

Fake person appearing real. Real person appearing fake. All in the service of finding followers and influencing them on behalf of brands.

There is no doubt that both Lil Miquela and Fashion Ambitionist have influence with their followers. But is this influencer marketing?

Yes. And no. Or at least, it is not consumer-to-consumer influencer marketing grounded in the genuine authentic endorsement of a consumer sharing her story and experiences with a product with her friends and yes, followers.

It is easy to see how Lil Miquela herself should perhaps be categorized as social marketing, not influencer marketing. Influencer marketing works because we like or identify with the person who is recommending a product, trust that recommendation is grounded in his or her own experience, and are therefore more likely to take action ourselves. While Lil Miquela seems real, her endorsements and actions are fabricated. She’s neither authentic nor genuine and her recommendations are simply advertisements. We can like and enjoy her content, but we are engaging in a pleasant fiction. We may share her content with our friends, but we should know, they should know, that they are engaging with an avatar, and responding to an ad, not another human. I strongly advocate for deeper disclosure than the simple #sponsored when it comes to avatars.

Fashion Ambitionist is a harder call. On its face, she is simply doing what all social influencers do – telling her story and weaving in brands as part of the tale. Just on a more dramatic scale. It’s not that different from what influencer marketing agencies (like SHE Media’s internal team) do when building programs for brands: we recruit influencers who love a brand to create sponsored content, although we don’t forget the sponsored disclosures. Since there aren’t any on these posts, either no one sponsored, which is sad, given the effort apparently expended, or they are violating FTC guidelines, which is just bad.

Except this Fashion Ambitionist stunt is different. Our goal with influencer marketing should be to have consumers create content that shows how brands are part of their lives. Not to have them stage their lives to provide a vehicle for brands. It’s a fine distinction.

It’s also unfortunately one that increasingly we collectively are not making. People are staging their lives for brands or trying to present some perfect image of themselves on Instagram in the interest of likes and followers. This isn’t authentic consumer storytelling. It’s a performance. Nothing wrong with it as a marketing activity; we should just understand what it is. Furthermore, when social posting detracts from actual enjoyment of the event, it’s not a good strategy and we are not getting the authentic engagement we wanted. Don’t miss the moment because you are trying to get the picture.

Note that I am not arguing against staged marketing opportunities. Flash mobs are fun. Virtual influencers are engaging in a creepy way. Some people are enjoying the Fashion Ambitionist content. In general, parties and events are a great way to create moments that can be shared across social media. Our BlogHer events have been providing sponsors with opportunities to connect with female consumers for more than 15 years, robot-free.

All these things — flash mobs, events, parties, virtual influencers – are opportunities for social marketing to tap into the desire of consumers to share content that excites them.

Influence, certainly. But influencer marketing well done isn’t just staging the event or making a social splash. It’s not about how much someone was paid to create content, and I am definitely not arguing that influencers shouldn’t be compensated for their work or that compensation somehow corrupts an endorsement. We don’t love a brand any less when it asks for our help in its marketing efforts.

Influencer marketing done right is about harnessing consumer passion for brands and connecting them to opportunities to share their love in the context of their own story. It’s about helping the brands reach those consumers in the right way, with the right opportunity, at the right time.

The influencer marketing moments that make my heart sing? Those are rooted in love.

A mom creating a sponsored post for a sunscreen and sharing a moment of joy of her child at the beach. A family test driving a car for a week and sharing their hectic, happy and not-so-happy moments along the way. A makeup lover sharing her tips, tricks and favorite products with her followers on YouTube, always trying out new things. Sometimes sponsored, sometimes not. A home chef leveraging her love of cooking into sponsored content opportunities and her own cookbook. Fans of a much-loved TV franchise sharing their excitement about the reboot.

Those moments when we capture that lightening in a bottle and connect a brand with its customer and make influencer marketing magic.

I love that.

— UPDATE 6/24 —

NY Times article on Fashion Ambitionist’s wedding stunt. Spoiler: they are married, sort of. French law has very specific residency requirements to legally marry in the country, so the stunt ended with a fake wedding.  Which is perfect in its own way.

The lines between real life and entertainment are forever blurred thanks to reality television. Social media didn’t create this phenomenon; Fashion Ambitionist’s wedding stunt was no different than your typical reality show, which is why it captured public interest. If you were entertained by it, great. If you thought it was ridiculous, fine too. Different strokes for different folks.

But don’t confuse it with the principled practice of influencer marketing. The pitch wasn’t very good. Hard to read, light on the specific value for brands. Sponsored disclosure was terrible. The burst of followers is likely to be fleeting. It also was a lousy advertisement for Fashion Ambitionist as a legit influencer.

In other words, if you are mapping out your strategic plan to grow your own influence, this may not be the model to choose. It all depends on whether you want to be famous or infamous.

Because the difference between the two? It matters.

The post The changing nature of influence – from Lil Miquela to Fashion Ambitionist first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

What makes social media marketing work is the social. The connection and conversation between and among humans. Respect, trust and drive toward community (homo sapiens expression of the pack instinct.) Digital media is simply the delivery mechanism that allows our communities to discard geographical considerations and allows us to replace, when we choose, the proxies offered by mass advertising with other consumers.

In the early days of influencer marketing, when it was small dollars and called blogger relations, we were perhaps collectively sloppy about the metrics. Potential reach as an example. Which is fair enough when you’re experimenting with a new tactic, but a non-starter as the tactic matures and acquires increasingly larger budgets.

To prove influencer marketing works, we have to address expectations, objectives and investment, and we just can’t show that it works. We have to demonstrate that it works BETTER than another tactic. That’s the RETURN on investment part. We also have to design our program for success. Good results from an influencer marketing program aren’t happy accidents. They are the result of solid planning that matches the tactic to the KPI and defines a clear, measurable and realistic objective.

Recently, the business press in our little corner of the world was full of headlines about @arii, an Instagrammer who unfortunately failed to sell the minimum number of products required in her test launch, and then complained, including about folks who got press kits and didn’t post.

Her Instagram complaint spawned a social media field day. Pundits wondered if influence was dead. Others pointed out the serious flaws in her business plan. For myself, I wondered why you would fail so spectacularly and then tell everyone.

Clearly, she didn’t have the influence she imagined, with her 2.6 million followers, or a solid business plan. It’s nice to have both, but it’s the solid business plan that is absolutely necessary. With a better plan, that she personally didn’t have the audience she needed for her product, might not have mattered.

Here are three influencer marketing lessons we can take away from her unfortunate tale.

1. Know your audience. Research your influencers. Does the audience generally engage on similar topics or like/share items similar to the one you plan to promote? Likewise, with anyone you identify as a potential influencer? Influence is that moment where endorsement sparks action. Without action, there is no influence. This action doesn’t need to be a digital action, but it is far easier (and cheaper) to quantify based on digital history. When the stakes are high, we also do consumer research that can quantify the full social impact, not just the social media impact. From her results, we can guess that she didn’t do rigorous due diligence about the audience, or the folks she identified as influencers (those who got press kits), and just assumed that her followers would buy and post about anything she presented them with. Hard no.
2. Consult qualified experts. We don’t know if she had advisors, but it certainly sounds like she did not. Your business plan and your marketing strategy will always benefit from seeking advice. Even if you decide to stick with your original plan, the process of talking it through will expose its weaknesses, giving you the opportunity to fix before, not after, launch. Don’t fall so in love with your idea that you aren’t receptive to criticism or alternative approaches.
3. Be honest about weaknesses and threats. We are generally great at identifying the strengths and opportunities in our idea. Not so much the weaknesses and threats. There were likely many weaknesses in this plan, but I want to focus on one: the belief that her follower number on Instagram translated into real reach. Some percentage of a following that large is bound to be bots even for influencers that have never purchased a single follower. An even larger number is lurkers. At SHE Media, we use a REACH RATE to understand the percentage of an audience that is actually viewing the content: IMPRESSIONS or VIEWS/FOLLOWERS. Likewise, ENGAGEMENT RATE looks at the engagements in the context of the views, not numbers of followers. ENGAGEMENTS/ IMPRESSIONS or VIEWS.

I’ve been doing social media marketing for 15 years and marketing for even longer, and no matter what the tactic or communication vehicle, the fundamentals always matter. Digital and the rise of social media have changed how we execute against our goals – all the stuff in the middle – but the start and the end are still and always the same.

At the start, you identify your unique value and the audience for that value, analyze your SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) and determine key objectives (awareness, purchase etc.) At the end, you evaluate your performance against the objectives. Applaud your successes, fix the things that didn’t work and do it all over again.

From a recent post on her Instagram, @arii seems to have taken the lessons of her failure on board. That is a great start for her next endeavor and I wish her the best of luck!

The post 3 tips to make sure your influencer marketing works first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

It’s a small but significant change. You’d still be able to like something, but the exchange would become a personal exchange between you and the content creator. Only the content creator will see who liked something and while content creators can see who, it appears that there may not be a running tally. In other words, they will have to manually count the likes. Instagram also seems to be testing other variations such as hiding the number of likes from the post creator and giving them the choice to see the likes.

Should Instagram turn on the “feature” across the platform, it would impact the social nature of Instagram.

Likes beget likes. It’s human nature: we are more likely to appreciate something when we tangibly see that others have also liked it. It doesn’t even have to be an endorsement by a person or people you admire. A volume of affection signals to us that this is something worthy of our attention, of our like.

Likes are also a key reference point for determining influencer value and the fees Instagram influencers are able to earn for branded content. The more you have, the more you are worth.

As a result, likes have become the next battleground against inauthentic content. Turning the public display off would be a fast, albeit drastic, path to shutting down a source of fraud.

The currency of likes is so strong for popularity that people have died trying to get impossible shots on mountains, towers and other wildly unsuitable places. It’s a strong argument for the platforms to address the issue, particularly with regard to children, which I will address in another post.

Reaction to the potential change has been mixed among influencers and brand marketers.

Some commenters channel Chicken Little (the sky is falling) while others like Dara Pollak of theskinnypignyc.com think it would not be such a bad thing. Says Dara:

Doing away with likes would put the focus back on the quality of the content, instead of just the numbers. Obviously, brands have to rely on numbers for their campaigns to show ROI, but they also should be paying attention to the influencer’s overall brand message to see if it aligns with theirs. If it doesn’t, the content would be disingenuous and likely fail anyway.

As a creator, it’s hard enough as it is to stand out, and when you’re constantly comparing yourself to others in your industry, it becomes an unhealthy obsession. I’m not speaking for everyone, as I know some people thrive off that form of competition, but I think that’s part of the problem. What used to be a fun industry is now just riddled with competition and envy. At this point, taking away likes won’t do away with that entirely, but it might bring a different and welcome change.”

Let’s look at the commercial implications of an “unlikable” Instagram.

• Likes evolve into a more personal connection with the content creator. They can still be an indicator of the value of the content to the audience, just without the network effect that tends to inflate them. NOT seeing likes works the other way too; when we see something with few likes, we are perhaps less likely to like it – even if we do. Removing the social cue makes likes more authentic. 
• Comments become the principal social interaction on Instagram. This could drive increased authenticity and better conversation. The truly engaged comment and converse. Engagement rates will decrease, but the quality of engagement will be better.
• Third-party measurement tools and models will be impacted; the degree depends on how reliant they are on publicly displayed information. If the change is released broadly, I’m inclined to believe that the Instagram Business API will support the data privately for marketers and approved API partners.
• Conversion metrics will become even more important. Clicks to site, affiliate sales, strong calls to action to drive purchase from intent to action. Not surprising considering Instagram’s ecommerce initiatives, the latest of which, Instagram Checkout, enables users to buy items they see on the app without ever leaving it.

What should we do?

This is only a test. Instagram has not implemented this broadly. When/if it does, the final version may look very different from what is currently being tested.

That is, after all, the point of a test.

However, it doesn’t hurt to be prepared, so I recommend a few things.

1. Make sure your sponsored Instagram posts offer real entertainment or information value to the viewer. Creating great content is never a mistake.
2. Think about the call to action. Don’t rely on the more passive behavior of the like to measure success. Encourage an action – comment, swipe for more, check out the link in bio etc.
3. Review your measurement models – how you report success – and make sure your tools are keeping up with the platform changes, and will be able to support you, come what may.

This is a developing story. I am sure I will write about it again. 

The post Instagram unlikable? A brief analysis of the impact of the proposed “unliking” of Instagram first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

And now data privacy. From GDPR and the California Privacy Law to the European e-privacy directive, I have been deeply interested in both the challenges and opportunities of data privacy. I wrote some posts on the topic last spring as the GDPR deadline approached in May 2018. Short version: as consumers care more and more about data privacy, innovation incorporating best practices for privacy could become a significant competitive advantage.

As the conversation swirled around the new rules and their impact, I then collaborated with my colleagues in the Marketing & Communications Research Center of The Conference Board, where I am a Senior Fellow, to field a research project to explore executive attitudes toward privacy, innovation and regulation as a indicator of how businesses might respond as stricter laws such as California and the e-privacy directive (which impacts use of cookies) take effect. We don’t have a crystal ball, and can’t truly assess the impact of future events, but we can gain a better understanding of how people think and how those opinions might impact their decision-making.

The research paper, authored by me, Innovate or Hunker Down: What Executives Think about Data Privacy, Security, and Regulation, was published last week and is available for free download from The Conference Board .

Topline

• Organizations value data privacy and security, in no small part because consumers increasingly value them.
• Compliance is part of company marketing messaging; however, few companies are deploying innovation around regulatory needs as a competitive advantage.
• Attitudes shared in this survey offer evidence that corporate responses may shift to place higher value on innovation, but the driving force will most likely be consumer expectations, rather than a proactive response in anticipation of consumer demands.

We have some examples in the paper, but if you have case studies or anecdotes, either of companies that have successfully innovated in the face of regulation or that have eliminated products or services in the face of compliance challenges, please drop me a note at sgetgood@getgood.com.

The post Data privacy. A competitive advantage? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Gregarious Narain is on vacation until the end of the month. We’ve got a couple guests lined up to join me in his absence, but this week was a little hectic so (truth) I did not have time to prep them properly, so this week it was just me, and a slightly shorter show.

Would you like to join us on the show? It’s pretty easy. We broadcast live on Fridays at noon eastern for about 20 minutes. I send you a link to connect to the broadcast platform in the morning along with any show notes we’ve prepared and you log in by 11:50 am for an AV check. Sometimes you’ll be joining Greg and me, other times it is just me.

What will we talk about? We are open to discussing any topic related to marketing writ rather large — digital and social media, advertising, influencer marketing, technology , but also Internet culture, consumer behavior, digital fraud, privacy, artificial intelligence. If YOU have a topic you’d like to bring to the table within that rather large brief, we’d love to build a conversation around it with you. Email me at sgetgood@getgood.com or message me on Facebook.

Now to this week’s topic — consumer attitudes and trust. Joining me are my two guests this week, Mr. Rogers and Captain Rogers, two icons of honest integrity.

I only have 2 topics this week, because both are both truth and lie. The first is that consumers don’t like or engage with sponsored content the same way that they do so-called organic content. I wanted to discuss this (again) this week after reading a great op ed in Ad Age, In Defense of the Lowly Hashtags #ad and #sponsored by Natalie Zfat. Written in response to the statement “nobody likes the hashtag #ad” at an industry panel (filled with marketers), she shared her pride in using #ad because it meant she was able to successfully monetize her content while creating valuable content for readers.

This strikes a chord with me because I think treating sponsored content as a second class citizen is lazy thinking. Fact: transparency and best practice would dictate that we disclose relationships that might impact an endorsement even if the FTC Guidelines did not. But also Fact: the FTC guidelines in the US and similar guidelines in other countries DO dictate that we disclose when the content we create is sponsored or influenced by payment, business relationship or free product. And finally FACT: people are not as black and white in their consumption of content as the conceit organic:good, sponsored:less good makes it seem. I have seen more than a little organic content that is AWFUL and quite a lot of amazing sponsored content.

It is not that we don’t like advertising. It’s that we don’t like bad advertising. Whether an ad or a sponsored Instagram image. It is incumbent upon us as content creators to create quality content, full stop. When it is sponsored, we disclose, because it is the right thing to do. Cap agrees!

On social media, there is no situation where you do not have to disclose that the content is sponsored. Not even for celebrities. The reason for this is that on social, we have none of the cues that inform us that the endorsement is an advertisement that we have in other media. When we see a celebrity on Ellen, we know she is pitching her new movie because that is inherent in the talk show format. When we see an athlete in logo gear, we assume that he or she is sponsored by the brand, because that is how sponsorship works at that level. When we see the same celebrity promote something on Twitter or Instagram, her post looks just like all her other posts, and just like all the other posts of all the other people using the platform. There are no cues to clue us in that this post is sponsored. When an advertisement doesn’t look like an advertisement, it must be disclosed. Just this week I ran across another article about celebrities failing to disclose, this time in the UK. This is one time where wishing won’t make it so. Wishing you didn’t have to disclose or inventing all sorts of reasons why it doesn’t apply to you won’t change the facts. Because it is all about trust. Right, Mr. Rogers?

So, while it is true that people do treat sponsored content differently, the difference, in my opinion, is largely in the minds of the creators. If we stop assuming that people view sponsored content differently, create amazing quality content and honor the trust of our readers by being honest about our business relationships, we can be proud of #ad.

This week’s other part truth part myth is also related to trust. In this case, our trust in the social platforms and websites. Axios Media Trends reported this week on Census Bureau Data that indicates Americans are less worried about online privacy, largely, the report surmised because we have become accustomed to trading it for access and services.

But we are still concerned about data privacy, security and integrity. Witness the Twitter storm caused by the fake billboards in London last week.

They struck a chord because there is an underlying cognitive dissonance between the value consumers perceive they get from Facebook and the value they are increasingly aware Facebook gets from them. GenZ is already replacing it, including on college campuses, with new “facebooks” coming online, also reported in Media Trends this week.

I have been following the digital privacy conversation for more than 20 years, sometimes closely, sometimes less so but I am convinced we are finally at the inflection point where it matters as much to consumers as it does to advocates and geeks, and it is an increasingly informed consumer who understands that there are 3 issues: privacy security and integrity. Being willing to give up a little personal data in exchange for access is a fair trade but we are no less concerned about the protection of that data.

So. The truth is Americans may be less worried about privacy in general, but it is because they have become more informed. And we are very likely still very worried about how our information is used, whether information is true and whether bad actors can breach the walls. We just are more willing to accept the risk.

The post Two Truths and a Lie: trust, #ad and privacy first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

This week we opened the show with a brief rundown of the BlogHer Creators Summit, and then moved to the main event, our discussion of fraud, the responsibility of the social platforms to remove hate speech and meme accounts.

It was my 14th BlogHer (not counting food, business etc., the offshoot shows of which I missed a few) but just the “main” summer event. The format was a bit different than past, with most of the action on the main stage throughout the day. Some of the highlights were: Christy Turlington Burns and Kirsten Gillebrand discussing maternal health and the need to VOTE, P&G exec Shelly McNamara on her experiences as an out gay executive in corporate America, Mattel’s new career Barbies and meeting Voice of the Year honoree Dr. Alaa Murabit.

Fraud is still very much in the digital media news. Instagram fraud had the headlines a few weeks ago, and likely will again (!) but last week saw an expose in the New York Times about YouTube fraud and concerns from advertisers about GDPR fraud in the form of false consent strings.

Truth number 1 this week is that if it seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t. True. 

Impressions, views, page views are all important starting points to understand DELIVERY but we need to focus on the engaged audience, and our results in that context. Looking at engagements instead of reach starts to counteract the fraudsters. Not completely, but a start. Artificial Intelligence cuts both ways. It is easier for the bad guys to create fake accounts and fake comments, but it is also getting easier to spot them. When we remove the suspicious activity from the results, we can look at the legit activity and engagements, for a better answer.

At long last, this month the platforms began (finally) to take action against hate monger Alex Jones. Apple removed it from podcasts, Spotify, Facebook and YouTube took action, removing content and deactivating accounts but there is still a great deal of inconsistency within the platforms. And Twitter did nothing.

Truth #2 is that while we should be grateful for less Alex Jones on the Internet, we need to hold the platforms accountable to do more.

Any action by the social platforms to reduce the volume of hate speech and lies by bigots like Alex Jones is a GOOD thing, no matter how excessively long it took them to get there or how incomplete the response. There is LESS Alex Jones on the Internet today and for that we should be grateful. But…. it did take far too long and we must hold them accountable. They do not get a pass on resolving the inconsistencies among their different services.

In the SNCR fake news survey last fall, marketers said that platforms had a responsibility to resolve the problem of unsafe, untrue content. Part of the response must include clear consistent policies across all services and enforcement thereof.

The myth or lie —
Bots and Meme accounts can replace authentic influencer content, and since they are much easier to control, are a good alternative to customer activation. No, no, a thousand times no.

If you want to make a SOCIAL BOT or use chat BOTs in your strategy, that is a legitimate choice, and can be very successful, but be honest about it. If you are mimicking actual human SOCIAL engagement, the consumer deserves to know she or he is chatting with a bot. It won’t matter to many, especially Gen Z that is already so accustomed to engaging with digital avatars. But they should be informed.

As far as memes go, by all means use them. They are a crucial tool for earned social shares. But don’t think  meme accounts can replace the voice of your customer as an influencer, not just a re-share. Use them alongside influencers but not instead.

The post Two Truths and a Lie: the “if it seems too good to be true” edition first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

This summer is flying by. We skipped Two Truths last week, largely because I was at the BlogHer Creators Summit for 2 days and the atmosphere was bustling! Way too noisy to record a Facebook Live show with my minimal equipment. I’d probably forget to plug in the mic again

When I started pulling together the posts for tomorrow’s episode, I realized I never posted the August 2d one. So, here it is, very late, but oddly the content is still timely.

The Truths
1. Both YT and FB blocked Alex Jones this week, but it seems like a drop in the bucket for the fake news problem and advertisers concerned about the context in which their ads might appear. Brand Safety is cited by advertisers as a top concern; consumers care about fake news / want to trust social platforms. but FB and Twitter both took a hit in their stock price because user growth dropped and resources were applied (however grudgingly) to these areas. This implies that taking an action / stance on privacy/data integrity has a cost beyond simply the expense of doing the “thing.”

2. Influencer platforms are rushing to release their “fraudometers” to show the integrity/quality of their networks. We discussed some of the models, but there is no standard for this. Everyone’s just applying their own opinion, whether human or machine derived, to define “fake” follower. In the end, it is also the wrong question. Understanding the fraudulent followers is an exercise to tick off a box. What we really want to understand is what percentage of an audience engages with the content, and then if we are a brand, what percentage of THAT engages with us.

Myth
Brand Safety is a myth. You cannot control all aspects on digital and social. You can get closer with advertising with ad tech tools and things like ads.text, private marketplaces, and guaranteed programmatic, but on social media? People are messy. You can’t control the comments or reshares and sometimes even your influencers go off script and do wacky stuff. Think PewdiePie and Logan Paul. On social, relationships are the keys to brand safety.

Resources mentioned in the show: Five Charts Explaining the State of Brand Safety

The post Two Truths & a Lie about Brand Safety first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Please forgive some of the technical difficulties at the beginning of the episode. It was our first program “on location,” I got a little lost on my way to Tom’s office downtown (I ALWAYS GET LOST BELOW WALL STREET) and in my rush to start on time, I forgot to plug in the Blue Yeti mic. Hey, it’s live, right??

About Tom
For more than 20 years, Tom Chernaik has worked with leading brands focusing on innovation and insight in marketing, law, social media, privacy and big data.

With a vision for addressing marketer concerns regarding compliance, Tom launched CMP.LY in 2009. He grew the company – rebranded as CommandPost – into the world’s leading social media disclosure solution and expanded the offering to include cross-platform social media measurement of audience and engagement. CommandPost was named a Gartner “Cool Vendor in Social Marketing” for 2015.

Tom holds multiple patents for his work developing innovative solutions for monitoring social network content for compliance, measurement and activation of offline processes. His work in the areas of disclosure and privacy has bridged the gaps between policy and practice with practical technology solutions.

Prior to launching his company, Tom spent more than 15 years in leadership and marketing roles for leading entertainment and media brands including XM Satellite Radio, All Indie (which he co-founded) and Gotham Records. He holds a BA in Liberal Arts from NYU and a JD from Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law. Tom was also the Co-Chair of the Ethics Committee at the Word of Mouth Marketing Association from 2011-2017.

—

For more posts about the FTC Guidelines, please review the FTC Category and the Ethics Category in the archives.

The post Two Truths and a Lie: The FTC Disclosure Guidelines first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Instagram is the most popular platform in many, but not all, markets. EMarketer reported this week that its “rising popularity for influencer campaigns goes hand in hand with the platform’s strong user growth, as marketers tend to go where their customers are,” but in some countries/areas, other platforms are as or more popular.

Instagram’s popularity has also lead to some crazy and unsavory behaviors — from people getting killed or injured for the sake of a photograph (just recently a woman was bit by a shark just to get a photo) and more than a few people have fallen to their deaths from buildings, mountains and waterfalls for the sake of a selfie, to fraud — bought followers, fake followers, buying engagement to boost the numbers.

We tried to get some perspective in our conversation.

Truth — Platform should always follow purpose. Just because Instagram is growing in popularity, doesn’t mean it is the ONLY platform for influencer engagement. In some countries, it lags behind other platforms and tools, and even in the US, it may not be the best place for your program, depending on your goals and content.

When making platform decisions, understand where YOUR customers are, where they are actually engaging with content. This also means:

• doing your due diligence about the influencers you are working with, and evaluating whether they truly have influence on the topic, whether they have the right audience for your offer or product.
• developing tasks and storytelling opportunities optimized for the platform. Don’t just use Instagram Stories — think about how to use them effectively, natively. And honestly, don’t use things like Stories (that disappear) without some other more permanent social storytelling to supplement it.

Truth —  Reach is a delivery metric, NOT a performance metric. In order to understand the performance of Instagram influencers, we need to look at engagement with content, not just reach. Our metrics tools of choice — whether platforms like Hootsuite, Sprinklr et al, influencer platforms or simply spreadsheets into which we record data from our influencers — can’t be satisfied with just reporting and rewarding reach. We need to look at impressions and at a minimum engagement rates — what percentage of the followers engaged with the content.

Metrics are complicated by the way Facebook and Instagram are set up — personal profiles have relatively little in the way of metrics, whereas business ones are relatively rich. This is less of an issue for businesses’ owned social accounts, since they were likely set up as business accounts, but influencers — especially ones that have been around for a while or who don’t want to use Facebook Pages (for whatever reason) run into complications with this.

As an example, if you want to convert your Instagram to a business profile, you need to link to a Facebook business page. If you don’t have one, you need to make one. This is a personal bête noire since I have a personal profile on Facebook, and never really bothered with a page, even for the business, because I largely use LinkedIn for professional posting. I’ve now got a “stub” page for my business, solely for the purpose of converting my Instagram to a business profile to take advantage of the richer native metrics.

Your takeaway from all this? Make sure your Instagram influencers are using business profiles so you can get the rich data available on the platform. You should already have limited your Facebook programs to influencers with verified pages using Facebook’s branded content tools to post. Expect that whither goest Facebook so too shall Instagram.

Also – do not compensate based on reach. Start moving toward results oriented compensation models.

Myth: “Organic” social content is better than influencer marketing because the person sharing it wasn’t compensated for his/her work. It truly comes from the heart. We wouldn’t have all this fraud and problems in Instagram if it we weren’t paying people to post.

Um no.

That is a load of organic material. Because advertisers WOULD — in the pursuit of scale — pay people to post. They just wouldn’t disclose it. Which is why we have the FTC Guidelines for Advertisers in the first place. Think about the Lord & Taylor dress debacle of a few years ago.

The truth is, there are very few brands that can incite excitement at scale without priming the pump in some fashion. Apple. Harley Davidson. Star Wars. Marvel. And THOSE brands invested deeply in the development of their communities from GO in order to have the natural fanbases that they do.

The rest of us have to kick things off if we want any sort of scale, versus just the occasional naturally occurring spontaneous mentions (that hopefully are positive!)

You should:

• Pay your influencers for the work they do;
• Mine your social feeds for organic mentions to find new content, new influencers;
• Boost the best performing content.

We ended with some personal advice: You don’t want to be the Darwin Award winner in the Instagram category. Always exercise caution when creating your masterpieces. You matter more than a like or share.

POSTSCRIPT: IMO a well-rounded strategy uses at least 2 types of content or platforms to reach the intended audience. Don’t JUST do Instagram, no matter how hot it is. Diversify into at least one other avenue to reach your consumer on social. I also think it’s critical to set a baseline, especially for awareness oriented programs, using a pre-campaign / post-campaign survey or brand lift study.

The post Two Truths and a Lie: Instagram!! first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Every week, my co-host Gregarious Narain from beforealpha.com and I will dig into a marketing topic through the lens of two truths and a lie, or more accurately, a commonly held myth. We’ll be joined by guests every few weeks for additional perspectives on the hot topics in digital and social media, but always through the lens of 2 truths and a lie.

The show will be broadcast live from my Facebook page, and posted on both my Facebook and here on Marketing Roadmaps for those that would like to watch the full 20 minute show.  The following day, a highlights version will be posted as part of the alphathoughts series on the Before Alpha LinkedIn page. 

In our very first episode, we discussed influencer marketing.

The Truths:

1. The influencer marketing space is consolidating.
2. Small audiences can be more effective than big ones.

The Myth:

• Influencer Marketing is full of fraud.

Check it out:

The post Two Truths and a Lie Episode #1: Influencer Marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Last winter, I recorded two video workshops about best practices in influencer marketing for genconnectU, a course for Brands, Tapping into Social Trust, which was released in late May, and for influencers, Charting Your Path, which is available now.

A reality about making a course that includes tech is that anything too specific about platforms or tools will always be overtaken by changes in the marketplace. For example, when we recorded the courses, Klout was still in business and Google called its advertising products AdWords and AdSense.

This is why I focus on strategy, process and tactics rather than specific tools in my courses. Even though things have changed in the marketplace, the best practices have not.

In addition to the video lessons, there are additional materials in both courses, including a Scope of Work outline in the course for brands, and Guidance for Setting Rates in the course for influencers.

If you use the code Susan10, you can save 10% off the list prices of $119 for the Brand course and $29 for the new Influencer course.

The post So you want to be an influencer? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

It’s also not influencer marketing. We have to be REALLY careful to not throw the baby out with this admittedly nasty AF bath water.

As I wrote last week, this fraud — and it is fraud — stems from the ad industry’s relentless pursuit of scale without a similar commitment to authenticity and performance metrics.

Influencer marketing works because it is human-centered, and humans beings don’t scale neatly with algorithmic and predictable precision.

In the 90s, anthropologist Robin Dunbar theorized that humans can only sustain a limited number of stable social relationships; 150 is commonly cited as the upper limit. While modern communication has changed how this dynamic works, as we are able to move more fluidly from group to group, online and off, and may participate in multiple networks of people with whom we share common interests, we should always keep Dunbar’s number in mind when thinking about how influence works. The ripple effect of a recommendation matters just as much as the initial impact. Much harder to measure of course, but just because something is hard doesn’t mean we should not strive to do it.

Influencer marketing done right is building relationships with customers over time, who serve as the advocates for your brand to their friends, fans and followers. You know and trust them. Their audience knows and trusts them. You work together to achieve a common goal. Kumbaya and all.

Influencer marketing works because we do move in and out of different groups online, and when we share a recommendation from one into another, we form a ripple on the pond. What’s been missing is way to independently assess the audience of influencers to verify that they do have the right audience. Independent of and across the platforms, independent of the agencies. It’s challenging, and even more so if you respect individual privacy rights. I’m working on some things in this space. More to come.

In the meantime, the best approach is to understand that the best results from influencer marketing don’t come from scale. They come from trusted relationships over time.

The other issue exposed in the Digiday Confession is poor measurement practices.

Reach is a delivery metric. It tells us whether we executed our social tactic successfully. It is not a performance metric. Performance is engagement with content, and your objectives dictate whether you are working toward likes, shares and comments, or driving all the way down the funnel to conversion. Reach is not a result.

The Digiday piece also shared that boosting posts, at least in this confessor’s situation, was just as fraudulent, reaching folks not even remotely in the audience target purely to shore up the numbers. This is just straight up bad practice. Boosting posts simply to increase the reach is a waste of money. You should ONLY boost your best-performing content, the content that is getting verified engagement, to expose it to a larger or different audience. Do not boost your turkeys. Let them fade away.

What about the BOTS?
The other article that caught my attention this morning was a piece on CNN about Lil Miquela, an influential CGI (computer generated image) that amassed quite a following before it was revealed that she was a CGI.

My opinion? If CGIs advocate for brands and someone is compensated for the endorsement, it is advertising, straight up, and should be disclosed. Ethically, I think it should be disclosed even if they are not doing brand or cause related work, because they are a construct, and consumers should know.

Personally, I’m not sure I love the idea of people modeling themselves after, being influenced by, robots, but as long as it is fully disclosed as CGI advertising, I don’t see why brands shouldn’t have the option to use CGI tools to deliver their message. They can dictate the message and don’t have to worry about the opinion of the CGI. Likewise if they use BOT accounts to manage message flow or respond for the brand in place of human CSRs. It’s okay as long as you tell people they are engaging with a BOT.

But CGIs and BOTs are not influencer marketing. They are simply innovations in advertising.

The post From BOTS to BOUGHT: The “crisis” in influencer marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The basis for the argument is the announcement by Unilever CMO Keith Weed on Monday that the company is pushing for greater transparency in influencer marketing to combat fraud, create better consumer experiences and improve measurement.

In a prepared statement, Weed committed the company to not working with influencers who buy followers, to never buy followers itself and to prioritize partners committed to increased transparency and eradicating bad practices. He dramatically concluded with:

The key to improving the situation is three-fold: cleaning up the influencer ecosystem by removing misleading engagement; making brands and influencers more aware of the use of dishonest practices; and improving transparency from social platforms to help brands measure impact. We need to take urgent action now to rebuild trust before it’s gone forever.”

This is noble, and I commend Unilever for taking a position.

HOWEVER,

I take exception to the idea that we can have backlash against our customers. Influencers, true influencers, are our customers. People who love our products and want to share their opinions with their friends, family and fans.

So let’s reframe this accusation before we go too far.

What we are reacting to is fraud, perpetrated largely by automated systems in the search for scale. Yes, people bought followers to make their numbers look better. But the root cause — and this is true for many digital fraud issues —is the holy grail of scale over all else. Reach as many people as you can at the least possible cost. The volume ensures a certain percentage of buyers. Except at some point, the volume becomes the goal, not just the means to the goal.

We’ve been seduced by delivery metrics, taking shortcuts that promise to deliver more, for less. It’s a cycle of inflation that “looks good” but doesn’t actually deliver to our objective.

Why are we always so surprised when the shortcut turns out to be a dead end?

The problem isn’t influencers, who are, after all, your customers. It’s the never ending search for scale without a similar commitment to authenticity and performance metrics.

I suggest (and have for years) that we think about consumer to consumer marketing differently.

Relationships
Ground your influencer marketing strategy in authentic relationships with customers who want to advocate for your brand. Don’t neglect those with smaller follower numbers; sometimes they are your most effective evangelists.

A good influencer marketing strategy activates customers with all degrees of influence, using tactics that take best advantage of both the customer’s passion and her platform.

Performance metrics
The performance that matters is conversions. Everything else is a delivery metric. Even engagement. Although it can be a conversion metric for some objectives, for the most part, it too is simply a way to measure the delivery of a program.

Make sure your program has a conversion metric, and a way to get there. You can’t convert without a call to action.

Link back to sales. You can be super sophisticated using modern marketing platforms. Or you know, simply start tracking sales over time against marketing activity, including influencer.

How de we avoid fraud in influencer marketing?

• Stop chasing scale and start working with your friends.
• Measure what matters, not everything that moves.

Cheers!

The post On Cannes and the marketer backlash against influencers first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I used to say that consumers like ad targeting, because it ensures that we see ads that match our preferences, but I now have a more nuanced view. It’s not targeting that meets with our approval. No one likes being stalked by the slipper ad simply because we clicked it once on Facebook. Ad targeting relies too much on assumptions about past behaviors based on lookalikes and other data matching. It’s close, but very often, not. quite. right.

What we really want is personalization. To be addressed by our (correct) name when appropriate. To be presented with products that match our age, stage, and personal preferences. To be offered content (and ads) relevant to our interests.

First party data drives personalization, which is far more powerful than targeting.

Personalization is going to a store where the clerk greets you by name, asks if there is something special you want, and then offers solutions based on your answers. Targeting is the clerk stalking you through the store, thrusting products in your face based on an assessment of your “profile.”

I’ve written quite a bit about the opportunity we have to reforge better, consent-based relationships with customers in which we offer real, sustaining value for the privilege of using their personal data. Here are some ideas on what we might do.

Don’t ask users for too much or unnecessary information. Only ask for what you need to deliver value back to them. We’ve gotten so used to collecting everything under the sun, “just in case” and for targeting later marketing efforts, regardless of whether it makes sense or we have a specific use for the data. For example, buying a concert ticket. Certainly we need credit card information and the billing address to verify it. But we don’t need annual income or gender or marital status to deliver a concert ticket. We ask those questions out of habit, so the data set is complete.

GDPR requires that we inform users how we will use the data, but I recommend we do a better job than a blanket “for business purposes.” Have a reason that adds value for the consumer, especially for asks that go beyond those needed for the transaction. For example, your event is planning special activities for families with children, but to staff them appropriately, you’d like to know ages of the children attending. It’s reasonable to ask for this information during registration.

Encourage loyalty and repeat visits to your content by using the data your customers do share with you to personalize the experience. This could be as simple as customizing their “ front page” into your site with content that matches their preferences to explicitly making recommendations for products and services. Pinterest and Flipboard are examples of content platforms whose business model is built on the simple concept of consumers driving personalization by sharing their preferences to create their own contextual experience. Both have had their challenges in recent years, with the hyper-focus on third-party data, programmatic and targeting, but both will now be increasingly relevant, as brands and publishers alike start thinking about contextual distribution as an effective alternative.

Engage your community. Include the customers in the content with active experiences, not just passive viewing. Be useful and entertaining. Interactive content. Reviews. Community forums. Online focus groups and surveys. Free tools and widgets that make their lives easier. Cool stuff. Real-life events too. Remember — the reason social media works is that it is social. The media is just the vehicle for the human connection we crave. With each other and with the brands we love. The more personal the consumer’s experience is with your brand, the more you build mutual trust and utility with your content (and yes, your marketing,) the more likely your customer is to share the personal data that will improve the experience. For example, a consumer might not want to share age or income with a news or lifestyle site, but have no problem sharing it with a financial site in exchange for using a college planning tool.

Speaking of social media, use it to foster connections, distribute content and promote your brand, but do not put all your eggs in a basket owned by another. Build your audience and your customer relationships on your owned properties.

There’s going to be a lot of noise and confusion around GDPR and its impact for some time to come. I’ve already heard the expected arguments that regulation stifles innovation. While there is some merit to the argument, regulation also offers an opportunity to be innovative. To find ways to solve business problems while respecting the social good — in this case personal privacy — that the law was created to protect.

Compliance with privacy laws has costs. Simply having best practices about privacy absent regulation, which some companies like Apple already do, has costs. But the opportunity for deep, sustained customer relationships is far greater. That’s where marketers should be placing their attention.

Glass half full.

—

Not sure how to get started? I’d love to help you engage your customers, build loyalty and drive results for your brand with an innovative digital strategy and content ecosystem. Even better, the first hour is free. Email sgetgood@getgood.com to book your free consultation. I’ll give you some thought starters during our conversation, and we can go from there.

The post On Personalization and Targeting first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

GDPR, the EU’s Global Data Privacy Regulation, took effect at midnight Brussels time today.

In its Winners & Losers article, which I encourage you to read in full, Digiday comments  “Bluntly speaking, any business that doesn’t have a direct relationship with users is in for a difficult time,” and goes on to note subscription-focused publishers as one of the GDPR “winners.”

My 2 cents: Moving forward, every publisher, every brand needs to think like a subscription-focused business.

The game is no longer JUST about acquisition or impressions at scale. Audience targeting is about to undergo a major sea change as available inventory shrinks and costs to produce it increase.

Customer loyalty and customer permission are the long-term keys to success in a post-GDPR world. To get and keep them, we need to deliver a stellar experience for customers. This means:

• building a well-loved, well-known brand;
• creating excellent, well-organized content ecosystems that incorporate all the touchpoints consumers have with our brands;
• delivering a quality personalized environment for customers/readers/viewers;
• leveraging customers’ passion for the brand or content by engaging them in the content. Influencer marketing for sure, but also community forums, face-to-face events, private chats.

Remember: consumers like it when content and experiences are tailored to them. Even ads. But they need to be truly tailored to their preferences. No one likes to be stalked by shoe ads just because they looked at the shoes once and their income level matches the advertiser target.

A final note: GDPR is often compared to Y2K in terms of the scope of effort required to comply, and on some levels, this is true. However, Y2K did have an end point. Either your systems fell apart on January 1, 2000 or shortly thereafter, or they didn’t. GDPR on the other hand is far from over. This is just the beginning of a new media environment.

Fasten your seatbelts.

The post GDPR 101: Focus on your Customer first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Recently, I’ve been writing a great deal about GDPR and the impact it will have on the digital marketing ecosystem. Worldwide, not just in Europe. Beyond the required compliance, I see it as an opportunity for brands to build stronger relationships with their customers (and make more money!) by creating offerings and policies that respect privacy and offer the consumer real value in exchange for use of personal data.

But none of this will happen overnight. For the most part, advertisers, publishers and ad tech companies are in a mad scramble to comply with the law by the deadline of May 25th, or at least show good faith efforts. Points for trying and all.

Here a short primer on how the GDPR deadline impacts consumers.

Overflowing email boxes

The most visible immediate impact for the consumer is all those emails with opt-ins and links to privacy policies. GDPR requires companies to obtain consent for use of the personal data of EU citizens, but for practical purposes, most companies are executing their plans worldwide. Consent is required down to the specific uses, and brands must provide mechanisms for consumers to manage or withdraw their consent. This is an oversimplification but it will do for today’s purpose.

Most privacy policies were written much too broadly to be acceptable under GDPR. Even if they specified the uses the company would make of the data, they didn’t offer a mechanism to withdraw consent. And many more issues beyond that simple one, from sites that didn’t really offer “true consent” in that “free” functionality was contingent upon the submission of private data, to collection of data that wasn’t really necessary for the business purpose at hand, but helped the collector understand more about its customers for future targeting. For example, if you are buying a ticket for an event open to the general public, does the organizer need to know your gender or income to process the transaction? No. That information is used for marketing and audience targeting. Under GDPR, the event organizer has to provide much more information about, and justification for, the personal data they are collecting and potentially sharing onward with other partners, and give you a mechanism for managing that consent.

You will probably get an email from every site and every email newsletter you ever registered with, even ones that you long ago forgot. And if they DO share or sell your data, they are looking for an opt-in to the new policy, so that can claim they have your consent. In the long run, I don’t expect that’s going to be sufficient consent for the regulators, but it is why you are being asked to “renew” your subscription. Even though it may damage their subscription numbers in the short term, it is a whole lot easier to scrub the list and move forward with consumers who’ve consented than to keep people on for whom they have no audit trail, of any kind. That’s also why multi-nationals and companies conducting international e-commerce are generally applying the same policies across the board. It makes no sense to have double overhead by having one system for the EU and another for the rest of the world. Especially since other nations may follow suit with similar privacy laws and matching IP addresses to physical locations is far from foolproof.

What exactly are you giving permission for?

From a casual reading of my own emails, companies are keeping these communications pretty simple. They outline the uses they make of your data, and provide guidance on how you can manage consent. The thing you need to watch out for is whether they share or sell your data to other parties, and how you can manage consent once they have shared your data on. Companies are required to have a mechanism to manage this, and quite frankly, my take is that many haven’t gotten very far along with this part of the complex GDPR compliance process because it requires cooperation among multiple partners in the technology chain. And that has been slow in coming, even though the deadline has been known for a long time.

Generally speaking though, in my opinion, the more specific the policy is, the better off you are, even if it seems like a PITA to read all these policies. The thing I would be most wary of is when the site/firm uses “legitimate business interests” as a general reason for sharing your personal data with a third party. That’s a handwave that won’t pass muster. Especially if they haven’t produced a consent mechanism.

You should also expect more detailed sign-up forms going forward, both when you are signing up for access to content and subscribing to newsletters.

Some advertising terms that will help you better understand this privacy debate.

First-party data — That’s the data that you share directly with the website you are visiting. It can be personal data that you share or anonymous data that the site collects as a result of your use of the site. Privacy regulations are most concerned with personal data that can be used to identify or target you, and how companies will protect it and your rights to your own data. The opportunity for brands inherent in GDPR is to build a stronger relationship with you so you have incentive to share personal data with them — to make products better, to get more relevant advertisers, and so on.

Second-party data — This is not used that frequently. It refers to when a site shares/sells first-party data about you with a second-party, who then uses that data to contact or market to you. For example, a conference shares its registration list with its sponsors, who then contact you directly with offers. The conference (the first party) is obligated to get your permission to share your data with the second party, but the data is typically used as is, not combined with other information to create super-sets of data.

Third-party data — This is where all the action is with regard to GDPR compliance. The basic issue is that the digital advertising ecosystem relies on a variety of technologies to target and deliver ads to consumers, using data aggregated from multiple sources to create new “super-sets,” which identify consumers even more discretely than the original data sources. As a vastly oversimplified example, we combine the data from a media website with data from a luxury goods company to target ads to site visitors based on their past purchases of luxury goods. The basic concept is sound; it helps advertisers deliver ads to the people most likely to be interested in the products, BUT it also introduces a privacy issue. If I am the consumer, I did not give my information to the luxury goods company to facilitate delivery of ads on a media website. I intended to buy a product. There was probably a blanket consent within the transaction to the advertising use, but it most likely doesn’t pass the GDPR sniff test.

Right now, a lot of very smart people in the ad tech world are working to figure out how to manage consent for third party data. It’s tough, because it isn’t simply about the initial consent; the consumer has the right to withdraw that consent at any time, and then all the partners in the chain have to remove the data. In my opinion, it is worth solving but it will increase advertising rates for this premium targeting. As it should. There will be a whole lot of infrastructure to manage the consent as well as a burden on the first-party who collects the data initially to market the downstream use to its customers.

Consumers won’t “see” the impact of GDPR on advertising delivery. Behind the curtain, though there is a lot going on. Ad tech innovation to manage consent but also, I believe a return to more reliance on first-party data and contextual targeting, showing ads based on the surrounding content, not presumed consumer behaviors.

I’ll be participating in a Conference Board webcast next Wednesday May 23rd at 11am ET to talk about GDPR and its impact on the digital economy. It’s free, so if you’re inclined to know more, please join us.

The post Email box filling up with updated privacy notices? Thank the GDPR. first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

1. In a post-GDPR world, targeted advertising is going to become more expensive. Not immediately. There is still a lot of confusion (some real, some manufactured) about what is required.  In the end, though, the increased costs of delivering compliant targeted audiences combined with a decrease in available inventory as consumers retract or refuse permission, will increase ad rates to premium, not programmatic, rates. I’ve been arguing this for a while and the pundits are finally admitting it. 

2. Context will be queen again. In order to reach the right audience, we will turn to content-centric, community-centric marketing tactics. In part because they ARE more effective in converting customers, but mostly because the cost differential between them and targeted/programmatic advertising won’t be so great. It will be just that much easier to take the leap of faith to try these tactics, which are still working out their success metrics (more about that in a bit.)

This is the opportunity for niche publishers and brands to create content for their micro-audiences that both provides the necessary context for ads and sponsored content and creates a relationship and value exchange in which the consumer is more likely to give permission for the specific use of personal data. As an example, Pepper & Wits, a new content site for women 45+ who are navigating menopause is owned by P&G; we certainly should expect sponsored content and other brand outreach but the primary purpose is to offer value to the consumer and targeted context, not targeted ads.

3. “If you aren’t paying, you’re the product” is a cliché whose days are numbered. Consumers will start to care about privacy. It has been a LONG time coming, but I truly believe that consumers are finally understanding the true cost of free digital services/platforms, and are going to want real value in exchange for the right to use their personal data. “Legitimate business interest” is not going to be sufficient to use a person’s data without permission. Publishers and brands who are offering great content and building relationships with consumers will have a far better chance of obtaining (and retaining) permission.

4. Things are about to get more competitive. Facebook and Google are vulnerable in this new advertising economy. They aren’t in danger by any means, but their models are based on scale, not relationships. They have no friends, just users. This opens up a sliver of opportunity for niche content publishers to create better experiences for consumers and pick off a little wedge of the pie. The duopoly will still get (more than) its fair share, but they will be handicapped in delivering their biggest strength, targeted audiences at scale, so the little guys can dart in and nab their share in areas where Facebook and Google cannot play effectively, content and community. Niche publishers, bloggers, even brands who can make the long haul investment. And Amazon. Amazon already does a better job of community than either Facebook or Google, is nipping at their heels and has a distinct e-commerce advantage. I also predict Reddit will make a strong play for the “community ad dollar.”

5. All of this will drive innovation. Certainly, in ad tech to manage consent, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Folks are already working on challenges like better measurement and attribution models that assign value properly and proportionally to all the players in the value chain, not just the last click. This is crucial for branded content, video, social media and influencer marketing.

Community is also getting some attention. Two start-ups doing interesting things to connect brands with consumers: Social Data Collective and Suzy. Suzy (AskSuzy.com) is the evolution of social media and influencer business Crowdtap. It helps advertisers make and manage meaningful connections with customers by offering them access to its super panel of consumers. Social Data Collective has a slightly different approach; it asks consumers to share personal data with the brands they love in exchange for products/services.

But I think even more interesting things are on the horizon. For example, aggregators of consumer information that validate consumer audiences and can compare them across properties, including blogs and YouTube and all the other places that community will form, not just sites big enough to register on comScore. Audience data all the way down the long tail to validate that the context IS delivering the right audience. This “data hole” has been the bête noire of the influencer marketing business, but there wasn’t a strong enough incentive to solve it, when advertisers could just buy targeted audiences cheaply. To sell content and community as the right context, you need the metrics to prove that you’ve got the goods. It’s coming. I am certain. And it won’t need PII (personally identifiable information) to do it.

We also need tools to give consumers control over their privacy across platforms and processors. Right now, if you think someone has compromised your private data or is using it without permission, good luck tracking it down. Blockchain is the best bet for creating this privacy audit trail. Someone is certainly working on this already. In fact, if you know who, I’d love to chat with them!!!

So there you have it. My predictions for the digital media industry. If you need me, I’ll just be out here teetering on the ledge.

P.S. If you want to check out the prediction of my business acquaintance, you can find it on LinkedIn.

The post Digital media predictions for a post-GDPR world first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Activating the passion that consumers have for the brands they love and turning them into your advocates is the secret sauce to identifying and converting new customers as well as increasing the loyalty of retained customers.

This simple concept, customer-centric marketing, has been the basis of my work for more than 20 years. It’s why I embraced blogs and then social media so wholeheartedly. It’s why I advocate so strongly for transparency, authenticity and disclosure, because they foster trust, the currency of social interaction. Online and off. It’s why I have embraced GDPR and other privacy initiatives for the promise they offer to build strong relationships with customers based on a balanced, informed value exchange for personal data.

Customer-centric marketing is also an idea that is often given lip-service, but not nearly as often embedded in our corporate DNA. We talk a good game about building relationships with customers, incorporating consumer feedback, building products and services that delight them. But when it comes time to implement the marketing plan, we use the language of war. We target audiences. We deploy tactics. We execute plans. We profile the customers into personas who are expected to follow prescribed patterns of behavior.

Which is fine, to a point. It would be foolish not to aim your marketing efforts at the audience most likely to buy. But our language and our tactics both tend to dehumanize our customer, to the point that we forget they are people and not just impressions or clicks or conversions or profiles. Taken to the extreme, and make no mistake modern digital marketing exists on the very edge of this extreme, our marketing isn’t just automated, it’s robotic, and not in a good way.

More human tactics like social marketing, influencer engagement, event marketing and even branded content restore the balance and remind us that customers aren’t simply segmented groups of purchasing behaviors, they are people. Living, breathing people who love our products and services, and are simply waiting to be asked. While these tactics are very often more effective, they are nearly always more expensive than digital advertising which uses programmatic buying and consumer targeting to reach the right audiences cheaply, at scale.

The good news, for advocates of more human centered approaches (like me), is that GDPR promises to reduce that financial gap. The SUPPLY for targeted ads will be diminished when (inevitably) publishers can’t document permission or consumers withdraw permission. It also will be more expensive to deliver an audience targeted PROPERLY with personal data. Both scenarios will increase CPMs for the remaining inventory. More on these and other scenarios in Marketing Week.

Certainly, contextual targeting will pick up the slack for digital advertising. There also will still be a market for premium permission-targeted audiences. Niche publishers in particular have tremendous incentive to develop a strong value proposition, both for their content and in exchange for the use of personal data for targeting. I wrote about this last fall.

As the cost gap closes between digital advertising at scale and more engaging tactics like influencer marketing and branded content, marketers will have incentive to shift budget to customer-centric marketing, where relevance can be proven by our interest and engagement with content and brands, not simply implied by our browsing history or past purchasing behavior.

It’s then up to us as marketers to create the compelling, customer-centric campaigns that engage consumers and convert prospects to buyers.

I’m game!

—

Additional Reading on GDPR. Tick Tock. Less than 3 weeks to go. 

• A column from the UK’s Marketing Week that shares a similar perspective on the opportunity to my own: Ben Davis: GDPR is the bible of customer-centricity 
• Overview from Ad Exchanger on Google’s Policy: Google’s GDPR Consent Tool Will Limit Publishers To 12 Ad Tech Vendors
• Nice piece from AdAge: Publishing Trade Groups Criticize Google over GDPR Policy  Sidebar: I find Google’s position that it is a data controller particularly interesting in light of its usual claim that it is a tech company, not a publisher or media company. It seems inconsistent that it would have first-party rights, as a controller, over data related to a content audience if it is not providing service to the audience directly (ie the content ) but only indirectly, via the services it provides to the publisher.
• Sweet piece from TechCrunch on Facebook’s response

The post Customer-Centric Marketing. An idea whose time has FINALLY come? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

In a bid to demonstrate a shift in its behavior, Facebook implemented restrictions to the APIs for both Facebook and Instagram on March 30 — APIs that many third-party developers, including players in the influencer marketing industry, were relying on in order to support their products.” – MediaPost

Some are concerned that this restriction on data will negatively impact the third party partners. In my opinion, whatever short term impact this restriction on data may have on measurement and influencer marketing platforms, the long term outlook for influencer marketing has never been better. Increased privacy regulations like GDPR are creating a positive situation that will far outweigh the short term issues that the current Facebook changes present.

Here’s why:

Audience targeting is about to undergo changes that will likely result in higher CPMs. The requirements for managing consent will add to the cost basis, thereby increasing ad rates. Some forms of ad targeting may even become too cost prohibitive.

This opens the door just a bit wider for influencer marketing and branded content. They rely on context and aggregate audiences, which are not impacted by privacy regulations. They also have nearly always been more costly than programmatic media and Facebook boosts. As the cost gap narrows, more budget should shake free for human-centered forms of marketing.

AdWeek certainly thinks so:

Working with social media influencers is another important model for marketers to consider in this shifting landscape. The assumption by many marketers about working with influencers is that they are meant for one-off projects rather than as parts of a wider campaign strategy. Yet, the brands who see the greatest success with influencer marketing take a longer-view approach, creating a steady connection with their intended audiences.”

So do I.

The post The long term outlook for influencer marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

This was easy enough to forget in the feature wars and fight for online social dominance, but the public now is generally far more aware than ever that if you aren’t paying, you are the product. It’s also now clear that Facebook’s business models skirt very close to violating consumer privacy, if not outright violations. When working as designed, by the way, not through some breach or hack into the system.

While Facebook has announced changes in the face of governmental scrutiny in the US and Europe following the Cambridge Analytica revelations, the response still seems pretty superficial. Lipservice, not customer service.

As a result, while I wouldn’t sign a death certificate for the platform any time soon, consumer trust in Facebook has seriously eroded, and it isn’t doing such a terrific job at getting it back. At least so far. I’m not sure they can. So many of the problems are built into the very infrastructure. This leaves an opening for competitors.

Others agree.

When asked by NY Mag whether a new platform could get a seat at the table, Dan McComas, former SVP of product at Reddit, said:

I think it’s absolutely possible, but it takes a couple of major factors. I think a start-up needs to think about the monetization and how it can work with the users instead of against the users. I think they need to figure out the right funding mechanisms and incentive structures that also work toward the users. I think they need to have the right product team in place to focus on users.”

Angel investor and entrepreneur Jason Calcanis has put some skin in the game, announcing via his newsletter this weekend a competition called the LAUNCH Open Book Challenge to find Facebook’s replacement. Seven winners will receive $100K investments from the LAUNCH Incubator. In his newsletter, he stated he is looking to fund a social network that is good for society, that will:

– Respect and protect consumer’s privacy
– Respect and protect our democracy from bad actors
– Respect and protect the truth, by stopping the spread of misinformation
– Not try and manipulate people by making them addicted to the service
– Protect freedom of speech, while curbing abuse (not easy!)”

If you’d like to follow along, or think you might like to enter, details are at openbookchallenge.com. The competition is open to existing projects as well as new ideas/paradigms, but ideas alone are not enough. The main criteria for selecting the semifinalists and the eventual winners will be ability to execute.

Reddit, Snapchat and perennial second place finisher Twitter are also in the hunt, but they may have too much baggage (and their own privacy violations) to prevail.

Something will succeed Facebook. It’s not a matter of IF, only of WHEN. Right now, WHEN feels a whole lot closer than it has before.

The post Is Facebook vulnerable? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I continue to find it fascinating that the company that develops the tool that so many brands, individuals and even public entities rely on to build and nurture their communities, neglected to foster its own. Facebook has no friends. We use it, we run our ads on it, we publish our news on it. But we don’t like it.

Which is why, now in its moment of need, Facebook is more or less twisting in the wind. Other publishers, other platforms have committed similar offenses. But in the court of public opinion, Facebook will pay for the crime.

Contrast this to Apple which as a company is equally as arrogant. I say this typing on one of my 5 Apple devices so know that I have drink the Macintosh-flavored Koolaid deep. Apple however always — well before social media — understood the value of community and built its marketing strategy from the get-go around cultivating evangelists. We love the brand. So much so that we forgive an awful lot. Lousy overpriced computers in the late 90s. Batteries that drain far too fast. And we pay a premium to use the thing we love.

It has always been true that if you are not paying, you’re the product.

We now are starting to understand the true cost of using Facebook.

This is the opportunity for a viable replacement to make its move, something that a year ago, I would have said was foolhardy. And no, I am not predicting the fall of Facebook. That is ridiculous. But it is vulnerable.

Reddit, long mostly off limits to commercialization, has recently relaxed its stance about corporate conversation on the platform. Ditto Pinterest, which has extended the hand of friendship to publishers of late. Snapchat, still not dead even though Ms. Jenner claims to no longer use the service. There is a little more room at the inn right now for smart players that figure out how to reconcile the competing demands of commercial results and consumer privacy.

We are finally, after 20 years, at a point where consumer data privacy in the US matters. To everyone, not just a handful of folks. We’ve also realized, I think, that even though regulation may stifle innovation, the cost of not protecting privacy through regulation is too steep. I personally wish we could rely on tech companies to police themselves and protect their consumers. Cambridge Analytica, and all the other extant examples for which the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica mess also serves as proxy, proves that we cannot.

In Europe, privacy is considered a fundamental human right. Its data privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulations, codify consumers’ ownership of their personal data as well as the obligations companies that use or control consumer data have to that consumer.

Our attitude toward privacy in the US is a little different. It is largely viewed in terms of individual rights vis a vis governmental authority. It is not a fundamental right, and our privacy laws such as they are, reflect that.

Nevertheless online data regulation in the US now seems inevitable. Senators Markey and Blumenthal have already drafted a bill, and these are smart guys who have been around the online privacy debate for years. Markey in particular. They know the dangers of over-regulating technology.

Interesting times.

The post Facebook has no friends first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

My comment got too long. What a surprise! Not. So I am posting it on the blog in its entirety. For context:

• The LinkedIn post
• The Medium post

Influencers have influence. Ultimately, influencers are your customers. They buy (or don’t) your products and services, and they talk to each other. Some influence a few, some influence many. But there is always value in customer -centric marketing.

The issue here is that we collectively have done a few things that contribute to the perception that influencers don’t have influence. I could write a book on this, and perhaps I should, in between trying to re-establish my consulting practice once again after 7 years inside.

First, we talk about one group, influencers, which is misleading. There are really multiple subgroups, each of which has different characteristics, and should be folded into the marketing plan with different strategies and tactics. Microinfluencers are your customers who individually do not have tons of followers, but in aggregate can create a volume of earned media. Mid-tier content creators/bloggers are also your customers, but they have built a larger following on a blog or social platform, and can be tapped into as content producers for both the endorsement value and their distribution channels. Celebrity influencers are much more about their scale, and somewhat less about their role as your actual customer.

Second, we need to activate these different types of influencers in ways that match their reach, influence and status as your customer. The same strategies don’t work across the board. We should start with our business objective, tap into the influencer population that will best help achieve that objective and the define a measurement strategy matched to the program. We also need to communicate those objectives and expectations clearly to the influencers we work with. It is OKAY to ask someone you are compensating to deliver a certain result. Our clients ask it of us. We should ask it of the people we work with. Not necessarily with crowdsourced strategies tapping into hundreds of microinfluencers, but certainly for content programs with mid-tier folks and celebrities. You cannot get mad at non-delivery if you don’t set an expectation.

Third, we need to ground our content programs in relationships with our influencers. After all, they are our customers. There are no shortcuts to relationships. There is no tool, no database, no algorithm that can substitute for the relationship. Use automated tools to get started, to manage content production, to monitor and measure results, to understand the performance of your influencers. But don’t expect that you can define a target audience, search a database for influencers that match the target, or whose audience does, or both, hire them to do something without the due diligence of getting to know them, and then hope for the best. If you know the influencers, you’ll know whether and where they have influence.

Finally, the original article was interesting in that it conflated two related but different marketing strategies, influencer marketing and thought leadership, in an attempt to make the case for thought leadership over influencer marketing. You can certainly tap into a customer (influencer) population as part of a thought leadership strategy, but by and large, thought leadership is about conveying ideas and building an expert reputation for the individuals and their organization, as a conduit to sales. Expertise does matter, and we may reach out to other experts in our field, with greater or lesser degrees of influence, to support and distribute our idea, but it is not the expertise of the customers. It is that of the brand and its representatives that is the focus.

Each strategy, influencer marketing and thought leadership, has its place in the marketing mix, and we don’t have to pick between them.

–

Agree with my ideas, but not sure how to get started? I can help with everything from strategy development and content creation to influencer, digital and social marketing, performance audits and presentation decks. Even better, the first hour is free. Email sgetgood@getgood.com to book your free consultation. I’ll give you some thought starters during our conversation, and we can go from there.

The post Yes, my friends, influencers do have influence. Here’s why we’ve gotten confused. first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

GDPR changes the worldwide advertising playing field. Even though it is a European law, compliance will be expected from any company, anywhere, that might have access to an EU citizen’s private data. On the technical side, which I am not going to cover here, the data management platforms and ad tech companies that support advertisers, publishers and the programmatic media infrastructure will have to manage permissions to ensure that no one is using data in an unauthorized manner. All data – first, second and third party. It’s a huge effort. Complying with the provisions of GDPR is table stakes. You have to do it or risk pretty hefty fines.

Brands and publishers will need to be transparent about data collection and use. In order to obtain, and retain, permission to use customer data to target, retarget, market, they will need to demonstrate value for their use of this information. As perceived by the customer. This is the opportunity and the silver lining to GDPR. It is now far more likely that brands and publishers will invest in innovative permission-based marketing to differentiate themselves from the pack.

Beyond table stakes

We have permission, as marketers, to go beyond a transaction based commodity marketplace driven by programmatic advertising and ever more creepy targeting and retargeting. A marketplace, by the way, in which media companies risked marginalization if not extinction as brands began to realize they could create content and target it to their audiences with direct buys through Google and Facebook, without the intermediary and mark-up of a publisher. As I commented last fall:

… for publishers, re-selling each viewer at a slight mark-up for what it cost to acquire that page or video view is not sustainable. Unless you add measurable value to that view, such as increased conversions, the pyramid will eventually collapse. Brands will figure out that they can buy those views, that awareness, cheaper if they go direct.

We now can go beyond the table stakes of privacy regulation, and build the permission-based proprietary audiences that will deliver true advertiser and consumer value.

What are we delivering to the reader/viewer/listener in exchange for the permission to use the data that we seek? Is it truly differentiated from the competition? If not, think some more. You must offer unique value to make it worth giving YOU the permission to store and use personal data. This is just as true with a subscription offering. Subscriber data is still used to market the audience to advertisers, and just as subject to GDPR. The paywall only increases the demand on content value.

This is why I advise:

Make your voice matter. If your publication/channel is the go-to source for the audience, your editorial voice becomes relevant again. Even though the brand can buy your audience elsewhere, it cannot buy your editorial endorsement anywhere but from you.

Other things to think about:

• Community – Building a community around your content through exclusives, discounts on services, events (on and off line). Digiday is an example of a publisher creating a community of senior marketing execs around a paywall offering.
• Infuse your content with your customer — whether sponsored content created by influencers, or crowdsourced reviews or live stream events in which they can participate.
• New content streams. Go beyond digital and video, and look at podcasts and events as ways to lock in your unique value, your unique audience. Vox Media and Crooked Media are two examples of firms successfully exploring new content streams.
• Newsletters are the ultimate permission-based marketing tool, so don’t use yours just as a billboard for content that is consumable on your site. Add additional value, shoppable links and images, even original content that is only available in your newsletter.

Your objective is to create an ecosystem of value in which your user (or prospect if you are a brand) regularly extends and renews permission to use her/his private data. You still have to abide by the GDPR rules, and be transparent about how you use data, whether you share it with others, and so on, but provided you don’t betray the trust of your reader/viewer/listener by breaking those promises, at the end you will have something far more valuable than retargeting data.

You’ll have a loyal audience. And that can’t bought. It can only be earned.

—

Agree with my ideas, but not sure how to get started? I can help with everything from strategy development and content creation to influencer, digital and social marketing, performance audits and presentation decks. Even better, the first hour is free. Email sgetgood@getgood.com to book your free consultation. I’ll give you some thought starters during our conversation, and we can go from there.

The post The silver lining in the GDPR: An opportunity for permission-based marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

In my post on January 22d, I noted that there was at least one article about influencer marketing every day, often more.

This week was no different, except for a change, the articles weren’t only in industry press. They also were in the papers that many consider the newspapers of record of the United States, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

New York Times “discovers” influencer fraud

This is not news. We’ve long known that the social platforms are chock full of fake accounts. ALL OF THEM. But most especially Twitter, the subject of the NYT story last weekend and follow-up posted on Thursday.

What is news is that it made it to the front page of a paper of record.

The NYT article dug into the business practices of Devumi, a firm used by celebrities, politicians, athletes and other prominent Twitter users to boost their followers. Long story short: lots of fake followers, often based on the identities of real people, artificial scale at best, fraud at worst.

The follow-up article reported that in the days after the original piece, many fraudulent accounts just vanished. Oh, and the company moved OUT of Florida, where it was about to be the focus of an investigation, reportedly to Colorado.

Lots to unpack in this, from the responsibility of the social platforms to better secure their systems to the imperative of scale to prove influence. The latter is what interests me for the purposes of today’s post, although I expect I will comment on the responsibility issue at some future point.

Certainly, there are celebrity influencers with huge Twitter followings on the roster of the companies that sell fake followers. It stands to reason that in the search for scale, some took a shortcut. Not news. Influencer marketing agencies and platforms know this, and have taken what steps they can to guard against it, as reported in Digiday.

From my perspective, this news is one large exclamation point to the value of quality over quantity when it comes to influencer marketing. Don’t get trapped into a numbers game that is easily gamed. Focus on building real relationships with the influencers who are your customers, your fans, your advocates. Less is more.

Advertising is and always will be about scale. It’s job is to cost effectively reach the largest number of interested people with your message in the shortest amount of time.

But influencer marketing is a different animal. Solid influencer marketing builds on relationships with influential customers who choose to advocate for your brand to reach other customers in authentic ways. Too much focus on scale perverts the fundamental nature of social influence. Not that scale isn’t important. But not at the cost of everything else that makes social influence effective.

Perhaps now the demand for scale will be tempered a little bit with an understanding that scale does not necessarily equal quality. My hope is that more folks will be receptive to this approach and stop chasing BIG follower numbers, choosing instead to match their influencer approach to their marketing objectives. When scale makes sense, such as launching a new product, and you need to raise awareness, turn to microinfluencers or celebrities to spread the word fast to many. But your bread and butter influencer strategy should be grounded in your true advocates, of any size, whose passion for your brand has real influence, and convinces others to try, buy, believe.

I am the eternal optimist.

WaPo columnist laments the changes in online mom influence

I feel like I have read this piece before. That’s not true, of course, but I have read so many like it in the past 15 years. From the fears of the longtime netizens when the web first began to commercialize to the circa 2008/2009 lamentations about the commercialization of blogs (which BTW led to the creation of Blog With Integrity,) and regularly since then, the constant refrain is that somehow sponsored content must be less authentic than spontaneous endorsement because it is solicited and curated.

In this article, the author misses the good old days of mom blogs, which she recalls as the authentic stories of parenting challenges, and bemoans the careful polish of today’s sponsored Instagram posts. Fair enough, and everyone is entitled to an opinion, But here’s the thing: the good old days always look better than today in the rosy glow of history. Some day, today will be the good old days.

The reality? There was good sponsored content and bad sponsored content “back then” and mom bloggers didn’t necessarily share everything even if it appeared more raw. The social currency was then and will always be the trust of your audience and the care which the endorser takes to ground her endorsement in a context that resonates for her readers.

There is no single perfect social platform, only the one where your customers are. “Back then,” blogs were the logical successor to forums and chat rooms, where many of the early parenting communities took root. Today, 15 years later, the new parent is likely from a completely different generational cohort. One that largely grew up digital, mobile phone in hand. Bottom line, if you are trying to reach millennial parents, visual formats like Instagram, Snapchat and video are a good bet for your marketing message.

That doesn’t mean that long-form is dead, or that no one is writing blogs anymore, or that Instagram has simply become a product billboard. Your social experience is what you make it. There is plenty of good writing, video and podcasting out there, if you want to find it. It may be advertiser supported, or part of a more traditional media property, or even behind a paywall, but it’s there, in parenting and any other vertical you care to name. There will ALWAYS be people who want to tell stories.

The question you have to ask yourself as a reader, is how do you want to support those storytellers? If you are getting the content for free, whether through Instagram, a podcast or a blog, you need to accept a certain amount of advertising with your content. You can decide how MUCH you want, but it isn’t fair to deny the storyteller fair compensation.

For their part, marketers need to be honest with themselves. Very little endorsement is truly spontaneous. Very few brands can generate unsolicited endorsement at scale. You need to pay to play somewhere. Isn’t it great that we can direct some of those dollars right back to our customers? I think so.

eMarketer is bullish on Instagram

eMarketer reports that Instagram is the most popular influencer platform, per research by influencer platform Zine.

Of course it is popular. It is easy to do, for the brands and the influencers, perfect for fashion, beauty and food, fast (no waiting 6 months to see uptake like with Pinterest) and the metrics are still squishy enough that “engagement” still counts as success. There are more Instagram influencer agencies, networks and platforms than I can even count any more, and new ones every day. All vying of course to be acquired by a bigger fish. Maybe even the biggest fish, Instagram/Facebook itself.

But it isn’t the only way to engage your influential customers as online advocates and evangelists. Blogs, Facebook, YouTube, bespoke online communities, your own website, media sites, even Reddit, Twitter and Pinterest, all have something to offer to the influencer marketing mix, depending on your objectives, your product, your timeframe, your customers themselves.

So use caution when faced with data showing Instagram as the winner in the sponsored content stakes or as doubling in size from 2016 to 2017, as one recent study from Klear touted. Of course the use of Instagram for sponsored posts grew significantly year on year, but Klear measured based on the presence of a disclosure hashtag, either #ad or #sponsored. This leads to a faulty analysis. You can’t compare the market in the (relative) wild west of 2016 , when many were largely still ignoring FTC rules, to 2017, when the FTC regularly issued warnings to influencers about poor disclosure and people started cleaning up their game.

Increase, yes. Double? Doubtful. There are probably a whole lotta posts in 2016 going uncounted. But, yay for better disclosure practices in 2017. Better disclosure is a good thing for consumers and for the social marketing industry, and about time.

Facebook changes the rules. Again.

Facebook has narrowed the acceptable uses of its branded content tool. In a nutshell, the person or entity POSTING the item must be the creator of or significantly featured in the content being promoted. You can post a sponsored video you created or star in but you can’t post a video for the sponsor in which you did not participate. Effectively making ads the default solution for most current video distribution.

In my opinion, this will translate into a short term decrease in opportunity for influencers who use their Facebook page for sponsored content, but a long term gain, as brands return to using more influencer generated/featured content in their marketing programs.

Wanna hear me talk about all this?

I was a guest on This Week in Digital Media, a Facebook Live show hosted by Chloe DiVita , and we discussed all these topics at some length. Watch here: https://www.facebook.com/PerceptivePresence/videos/182048805886795/

Photo credit: Matt Britton

The post This week in influencer marketing: New York Times “discovers” Influencer fraud; Washington Post columnist laments changes in online mom influencers; Facebook changes the rules. Again. first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

One of my key recommendations for digital success in 2018 was to diversify your content distribution strategy and focus on building a loyal audience that regularly returns for your content.

January isn’t over yet, and Facebook has demonstrated the critical importance of this. Its pending algorithm changes are forcing publishers to shift their strategies. As reported in Digiday:

“Some are returning to old standbys like search and email; others are putting more resources into different platform products. […] In most cases, the goal is to build sustained engagement with publishers’ content, rather than chasing the flyby traffic that Facebook sometimes drove.”

Another recommendation was the critical importance of your editorial voice. Dan Greenberg, co-founder and CEO of Sharethrough, agrees. Discussing brand safety concerns in an interview with eMarketer, Greenberg said

“brands are shifting back to buying from premium, curated, real publishers that have an editorial voice, instead of just putting a box on the corner of a random webpage.”

I am batting 1000, so figured I’d drop one more on you. The influencer marketing industry will see significant consolidation by the end of 2018. It’s already started, with the acquisition of Whosay by Viacom earlier this month.

Every day, I read at least one, and sometimes two or three, articles announcing that 2018 will be the year of influencer marketing. Influencer marketing as a marketing practice has been around for a decade or so, since the very first blogger relations programs circa 2007/2008. Customer centric marketing, as a buzzword if not in practice, has been around even longer. The idea of using your customer as an evangelist, as an advocate, is not news.

What IS news is that it is now an important element in the marketing plan for many brands. A must-do, not just a nice-to-have.

This trend has been developing over the past couple years. You can almost follow its growth by tracking the growth of influencer marketing agencies, platforms and networks. Ten years ago, it was a handful of companies. Now, there are countless specialized agencies and technology platforms, nearly every consumer publisher has some influencer offering and the integrated agencies, not to be left out, have both practices and products to offer their clients.

As Digiday reported this morning, brands are also increasingly bringing all or part of their influencer marketing in-house, using a combination of internal staff, agencies and technology platforms/tools.

While there is plenty of work to go around, I predict significant consolidation. Here’s why.

You shouldn’t build your business on someone else’s platform. As influencer marketing increases its importance in the marketing plan, it will be critical to protect the investment. That is certainly why Viacom bought Whosay rather than continue to work with it as a vendor. Bonus — acquiring the platform you use removes it as an option for your competitors, another common reason for mergers.

As a result, the most promising small companies will be acquired, by media companies, agencies and larger more established competitors that can extend the platform (and the acquisition costs) across multiple advertisers. Some of the big consumer brands are possibly also in the mix as acquirers, but I think that less likely overall.

All these companies could develop their own solutions from scratch, but honestly, there are so many start-ups in the space, it is a far smarter business decision to buy, not build.

Not every brand that wants to use influencer marketing as part of its strategy will have the means or interest to acquire a platform in-house. There will still be need for independent software companies and agencies that sell various combinations of platform, services and influencer access.

But consolidation will reduce the industry back down to a reasonable number of tech companies, some of which will focus on small and mid-sized business, and others that will operate on the scale, enterprise level. Much like any other SaaS product. It is an inevitable right-sizing. Some firms (see above) will be acquired, some will acquire smaller competitors, and some will close their doors.

The key for brands that choose to use outside platforms will be to protect their data. To retain control over their results and the influencer relationships they nurture. This means making sure that they can capture and keep the data about the influencers they work with, and the results of the campaigns they do. Otherwise, they risk becoming hostage to a technology platform. You want to make absolutely sure that your information is stored to be portable to another platform, and that you are contractually permitted to do so. You need that fail-safe, because, I repeat, you shouldn’t build your business on someone else’s platform.

Who will be the winners? It’s anybody’s guess about the tech platforms (although I have a few,) but no matter what, the customer is a winner. Those that have nurtured their social influence, whether big or small, are getting a piece of the advertising pie. And for all of us, sponsored influencer content is better, more authentic, more engaging advertising.

The post Initial report card on my 2018 recommendations and a prediction: the influencer marketing industry will see significant consolidation first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Cue, immediate uproar from publishers, advertisers and brands that these changes would prevent their fans and followers from seeing THEIR updates.

Tempest in a teapot. The only way for brands to reliably get their content in front of their audience on Facebook at scale is to advertise. Facebook ads, boosted posts, branded content. Now it is simply more obvious.

In the short term, yes, these changes are unfortunate for those brands that have developed models for organic Facebook success. They will have to rethink their models and consider using paid posts to get the sharing started, rather than just relying on their content to drive organic shares. But, as long as the content is good, and worth sharing, does it really matter that you have to invest in a small amount of paid to get the party started? I don’t think so. I have long believed that what matters isn’t whether something is paid, owned or earned. It’s whether someone wants to share it. Previous posts on this topic include Shining a light on the native advertising debate from 2014 and Is earned media an anachronism from 2011.

Net, not much has really changed for brands. Facebook is just loudly fixing something that has hampered its user experience, and basking in the brownie points from billions of users.

By this week, the digital advertising press seemed to agree. Nothing new here, more of the same said both Digiday and Adweek.

The post Facebook changes algorithm, but nothing really changes for brands. It’s a pay for play world. first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

It’s not enough to have a mobile-first site with strong traffic, SEO friendly content, a way to deliver video pre-roll and a good native offering. You DO have to have that, but digital success in 2018 requires a few more ingredients. Scale alone is not enough.

Here’s my recipe for digital success in 2018. Whether you are a digital publisher or a brand extending its content strategy, below is my take on how to turn readers and viewers into true audience that you can then further monetize — events, products, e-commerce etc.

The Basics
1. Great content. With a point of view
Content with a point of view will be more successful than content that tries to be all things to all people. Vanilla is a lovely flavor, but if everyone offers that same vanilla, content becomes a commodity. Point of view isn’t necessarily an opinion or a “stand;” you don’t have to be news or hard-hitting to have one. It can be everything from a niche target, an overt POV, to a more subtle theme or vision underlying and holding together the content you create. It is NOT a mission statement or manifesto, although those can part of a point of view.

2. A deep understanding of and commitment to your customers — both the one you have and the one you want.
Point of view is likely something you share with your target audience or customers. The more you know about them the easier (but never easy) it will be to build a product they will love. This is equally true if your project is 100% digital, or digital is simply the gateway to purchasing a tangible good. You also have to be committed to looking at your business with a customer-centric lens. Everything truly does depend on making the customer happy. Shortcuts may get you through in the short-term but long-term success for any brand is about delivering to customer needs. Consider expanding the C- suite to include a Chief Customer Officer to be the steward of this effort in partnership with client service, marketing, sales, finance and operations.

3. Data, data, data
Data drives decisions. What gets measured, gets managed. You’ve probably heard these phrases more than once in your career. Simply put, the things we measure are the things we can effectively act upon. If you don’t have data, you can’t adjust, optimize, improve. Of course, for measurement to be effective, you have to define a baseline for success up front so you measure the right things, not every thing. All data is not equally important.

Analytics (website, social platforms, campaign performance) are just the first part of a comprehensive research plan. Third party research data is the second. And proprietary research – into your audience, your content performance, market opinion — is the connective tissue that brings analytics and third party data together into meaningful, actionable information that you can use to make your content better and differentiate from the competition.

Traffic Drivers
Our first set of ingredients are the traffic drivers. How do you find the audience and bring them to your content?

4. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
SEO is your first, and best, friend for building traffic. Nothing — not even paid search — replaces strong organic search results. You can build an internal SEO team or contract an SEO firm to develop your SEO plan and process. However you choose to operationalize SEO, it should be a continuous loop between the content creation team and the SEO management team. But search alone is not enough to ensure success, and you shouldn’t expect it to deliver all your traffic. Against one measure, it scales amazingly well. One well written, search-optimized article can deliver many readers against multiple queries. On another, not so much. You acquire every reader one search at a time. To achieve any scale, you have to keep feeding the beast fresh new content all the time. Even though you can update older content, you still need staff to write and edit. Search is the foundation of your traffic strategy, but it isn’t the whole structure.

5. Social traffic
Social traffic isn’t the panacea either, but you need a robust social strategy to distribute your content on the popular social platforms. Specifically Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter (in descending order of importance). Earned, or “organic,” mentions of your brand are important and you should by all means start with a social communications strategy that leverages your owned social accounts to spread the word about your content and initiatives. But don’t expect earned social to get the volume you need. For most brands, organic social reach is a delightful myth. While your audience may follow your accounts for the news, they aren’t going to re-share it at the volume you need to reach new audiences. And then there’s the fact that the algorithms of social (Facebook in particular) are DESIGNED to push you toward paid social. Ads, boosted posts etc. Don’t fight it. Embrace it. Make it work.

My advice is to post your news and stories and get the organic reach that your audience will naturally deliver. Then boost the best performing posts to reach new readers. This will increase the potential pool that might share the content, thus increasing your earned media. Branded content in the form of influencer-generated posts is an important ingredient; consider MarketingLand’s report this week on research done by social analytics firm Shareablee showing that viral reach from branded content ads on Facebook eclipses standard ads.

6. Native advertising
The power of native content is why you should use your web and social analytics, and even your SEO analyses, to identify the best content to put in native advertising units. Publishers may prefer to promote the branded content they create in their native units, but increasingly they are opening their inventory up to native programmatic as well as premium native advertising using content sourced elsewhere. Plus of course services like Taboola and Outbrain, although I recommend that you regularly evaluate whether the traffic you get from less-premium sources is the same quality that you get from more premium sources of traffic.

But like SEO, social posts and native ads deliver one reader, one viewer, one click at a time. Scale requires volume. Every increase has a real cost to produce and distribute the content. It’s effective, but not terribly efficient.

In addition to growing your unique users, you need to convert those one-time readers and viewers into a loyal audience. You want them to keep coming back for more, and consuming more than one piece of content at each visit. In analytics terms, you want your uniques to keep growing, but your page and video views to eclipse uniques. In my opinion, 4x is a baseline for good, and you really want it to be much more than that. Our next set of critical ingredients are the engagement and loyalty drivers.

Engagement and Loyalty Drivers
These ingredients deepen your readers’/viewers’ relationship with your content.

7. Newsletters
What’s old is new again! Newsletters are the best mechanism to get casual readers/visitors into into your content ecosystem and regularly coming back for new content. Because they are permission-based, with the user having control over what data is shared with the publisher, they are more compatible with privacy regulations like the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will become increasingly important for any firm doing business with EU nationals when GDPR takes effect in May 2018.

That said, getting permission from the user is only part of the privacy mandate; you also have to protect it, so your newsletter tech needs to be super smart. Bottom line though, the more you can get the reader/viewer to share with you (first party data), the less you will be restricted by potential regulations/restrictions on the use of third party data from the big databases. That means delivering real value in exchange for personal information, and the more you ask, the more value you must add.

Don’t use your newsletter simply as an index to articles on your site. Folks may subscribe but they won’t necessarily become loyal readers (and repeat visitors) if the newsletter is nothing more than a promotional tool for your articles. Take the time to create some original content around the articles you recommend. Follow the example of Digiday; its daily newsletter highlights articles from the Digiday site, but it places them in context, giving the reader value even before she clicks over.

8. Recommendations
Website design matters. It is all well and good to say that no one comes to your home page, so giving it undue importance is wasted effort. For many, site visits are driven by search and social directly to the content. But the structure of content on the site once someone gets there and their ability to discover new, relevant content matters. A lot.

Publishers and brands need to invest in recommendation engines and native units that bring readers/viewers deeper into content based on their interests. Baseline is a smart keyword/topic match to the article/video they are reading or viewing, but we need to push the envelope on this. As we build stable databases of loyal readers’ preferences and past viewing habits, we should make inferences about the type of additional content they would like to consume, both editorial but also branded content. The better we match our recommendations to their interests, the more likely they are to consume multiple pages of content by choice, and not just because you split the content up into 7 pages.

9. Video (but smarter)
Digital publishers by and large have struggled with video. There is huge advertiser demand, nowhere near enough quality inventory, and strategy after strategy to manufacture it has met with lukewarm success at best. Facebook seems to be the hands-down winner for delivering targeted video eyeballs, followed by the video aggregators like Jun Group who have fed the digital demand of both publishers and brand-direct.

What seems clear to me, whether you are looking at digital, linear or OTT, is that successful video strategy is grounded in more than just delivering consumer eyeballs through targeting and audience acquisition strategies. If you BUY every view for slightly less than you re-sell it to your advertiser client, your business cannot scale efficiently. It works for a while, but eventually the advertiser figures out that she can buy that same eyeball direct.

To be successful with video, it comes back to figuring out what resonates with your audience, what fits with your editorial or brand mission, and most importantly, what you can do better, smarter than the other guy. I wrote about this in September. Success is rooted in smart content strategy, incorporating video where it makes sense for the story, not simply to deliver advertising. We shouldn’t pivot to video; we should integrate video into a multi-format digital strategy that includes all sorts of content. For a successful publisher’s take on this issue, check out Digiday’s report on Bustle’s strategy.

Even if your content is primarily text, and doesn’t seem to “need” video to tell the story, for example B2B content, you need to start at least thinking about video. Pew Research reported this spring that millenials are now the largest living generation : “In 2016, there were an estimated 79.8 million Millennials (ages 18 to 35 in that year) compared with 74.1 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70).”

This generation looks at and engages with content — both digital and IRL — differently than the older generations. For many in the cohort, video is the preferred communication medium. Business sites that want to reach this new worker need to think about how to incorporate video into their content strategy.

For what its worth, I think it helps to think about video as 5 basic types.

1.  News / Documentary — current events, educational, fact-based. Your purpose is to convey specific information to viewers, and you may or may not have a specific point of view and desire to convince / persuade.
2. Comedy — Make ‘em laugh.
3. Caught on Tape — There is a reason “America’s Funniest Home Videos” has been on television for more than 20 years. People LOVE to watch real people and animals in funny, silly situations. The quality of the videos may be dodgy, but the quality of the engagement is not. See also babies, puppies and kittens.
4. How-To – do just about anything. Cook, apply make-up, style a wardrobe, decorate, garden, change a tire, take pictures, make videos, even business topics can come to life in video. You name it, there is a how-to video to show you the way. This is the easiest type of content for publishers and brands to add to their sites, and our appetite for it is insatiable.
5. Scripted entertainment with HIGH production values — the market has been cornered by linear and OTT properties created by the big entertainment studios, especially at long-form, but I think there is room for scripted short-form where talented amateurs can be competitive with the big guys.

In my opinion, there are two successful video strategies. You can specialize in one type of video, and go deep and long to meet the needs of your audience for that type of content on your channel. In an increasingly crowded marketplace, you must have an unserved or underserved niche to be successful. The other strategy, which is the one most publishers and brands would be well-served by, is that you integrate the appropriate type into your story telling as needed, but your focus is the stories. You don’t need to specialize in one form as much as you need to make sure that the video you are creating is additive to the stories your audience comes to you for.

Note that some of these formats lend themselves naturally to the development of community, ie the fans that are loyal viewers. For example, comedy shows, reality TV, and character driven drama or comedy. Others are more likely to be driven by search engine results such as tutorials. Current events are a bit of a blend. We may be fans of a particular franchise such as The Rachel Maddow Show, but much of the time, we are driven by search about a specific news item.

Make small, smart investments in your original video programming, and then look at the numbers – what drives traffic and engagement? Do more of that. Drop anything that doesn’t work, no matter how much you love it.

10. Community
Influencers must become part of your content ecosystem. For branded content but also more broadly to extend the footprint of a publication or brand authentically into the community. This takes a different shape if you are a brand using your content strategy to directly promote your company and its products or a publisher, aggregating content and monetizing through advertising, but the fundamental principle is the same.

Go beyond seeing your customers as content or product consumers, and engage your audience in the content creation process. Last fall, I outlined how this might look for a digital publisher. The most important thing to remember is that you want to create multiple touch points for your customers into your brand or publication, and leverage their contributions as much as you can. Everything from deep relationships and extended partnerships with brand ambassadors or top-tier contributors to simple content creation programs with mid-tier influencers and earned media with micro influencers.

11. E-commerce
Many publishers are leaving money on the table by not integrating shopping into their sites. For branded content for sure, but also to earn against the products used in the normal course of business. Where can I get the clear mixer bowl in that video? I love what the host was wearing. Show me similar outfits. One needs no further proof that this is a smart strategy than that Amazon has launched an influencer program to develop branded content as an extension of its affiliate marketing program.

Online retailers like ShopStyle have a robust affiliate program as well as content programs using influencers. Publishers like Diply, Mashable and Bustle have incorporated e-commerce on their sites, to varying degrees:

•  CRO and President of Diply Dan Lagani sat down with Cheddar to talk about the potential of e-commerce for digital publishers.
• Bustle in the Wall Street Journal:  “The company has also signed additional video deals with Facebook Inc. and YouTube, and boosted its affiliate commerce, where it takes a cut of product sales generated by links included in its posts.”

But for long-term success, publishers need to develop e-commerce strategies that do not depend on Amazon affiliate income; Amazon will likely start cutting its affiliate commission rates as it further develops its own content strategy. Whether they choose to go direct to brand, partner with the affiliate networks like CJ Affiliate and Rakuten or partner with retailers, the key will be to integrate the shopping cart in such a way that it is non-intrusive to, but integrated with the content experience. The smarter, the better. Bonus for integrating influencers into the mix, as ShopStyle does.

The other e-commerce play is to have your own product line. Not every publisher has the wherewithal, the brand or the stomach for this, but if you have your own products, you are the original channel Subscription boxes were all the rage this year; no matter what your interests, you can probably sign up for a box of merchandise to be delivered to your door every month.

The garnish — a podcast

A podcast, my last ingredient for you, is more of a garnish than a requirement, so I am not counting it among the 11required ingredients for 2018, but I suspect it will be one by 2019.

Podcasting is the most social of social media. The format is so simple — a conversation between/among two or more people that makes us feel, with the intimacy of sound, like we are seated at the table too.

According to Edison Research, podcast reach has grown by 50% over the last four years, and nearly a quarter of Americans age 12 or older listen to a podcast monthly. Podcasts are most popular among 18-34s, but teens and the 35-54s are also listeners. 41% of Americans listen to some form of “speech” audio on any given day.

Right now, the playing field, and opportunity, is wide open to all. The duopoly of Facebook and Google are no better situated than any other player to establish a podcast audience and generate revenue from (and with) that audience. Even though many big advertisers are still waiting for listener metrics to get better, Edison projected podcasts to earn $220 million in ad revenues in 2017. Publishers searching for new sources of revenue would be well served by considering a podcast. It ticks a lot of boxes — content, community, native advertising, low barrier to entry and easy to experiment with formats.

The fast and simple way in is to sponsor an existing podcast that aligns with your brand values/proposition and reaches your target audience. The longer way around, and the more lucrative for a publisher, is to create a new podcast that delivers unique value for your brand and to your advertisers. I highly recommend looking to your community of readers/viewers/influencers for both hosts and guests.

And there you have it — 11 ingredients for digital success plus a bonus garnish. Thanks for sticking with me to the end.

The post 11 ingredients for digital success in 2018 first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

It was always something of a pipe dream. Those of us in the business learned quickly that we need to use amplification media to reach large numbers of consumers with our messages. No matter how large the organic audience of a website or influencer blog, we could not target content the same way we could ads. Drop that excellent post into a banner or native amplification ad, and I could be sure that moms of elementary school children were exposed to the sponsored juicebox posts.

This doesn’t minimize the value of the authentic voices who create sponsored posts on their blogs. Their endorsement of the brands they love drives consumer engagement with the brand in ways that traditional advertising never could. But we are lucky if 5% of a blog’s readers read any given sponsored post during the typical 6-8 week timeframe of most digital campaigns. If we want to drive that number up, we need to drive traffic to the posts.

Paid media is one way to do it. The other common way to drive traffic to our content is through social posts, both paid and earned. When a reader magically clicks the SHARE button, that earned share is GOLD, providing both engagement and amplification. Paid promotion is everything from asking the author to promote her post on social to engaging microinfluencers to share out links to branded content to standalone social posts that act as the endorsement and deliver the brand message directly to the audience.

And no matter how you look at it, for the most part, organic scale is a thing of the past on social. The most popular platform in the world is Facebook, and its branded content policy and content algorithms are designed to support its business model, to sell access to the most targeted audiences in a variety of ways. Ads are but one way to reach the Facebook user. If you want sponsored posts and branded content to reach as much of the target audience as possible, you have to boost the posts. The other platforms may be less obvious or less advanced (and certainly smaller), but the fact remains that paid social is the best solution for scaled amplification.

I’ve stopped worrying about whether that is a good or bad thing for influencer marketing. It just is, and your branded content programs, whether publisher- or influencer- driven, need to include paid social as an amplification tactic. We need to worry less about whether something was paid or earned, and more about whether it is shared.

Influencer – ie consumer – endorsement is the most powerful testimonial for a brand. A good influencer marketing program focuses on activating the right influencers to share about a brand, and then amplifying that content so it reaches the largest possible number of other consumers. I’d rather see brands regularly work with a smaller number of influencers, but in deeper relationships (brand ambassador, content partner, etc.) and supplement that core group with scale microinfluencer activations when they have product launches, major initiatives etc. This delivers the largest possible impact for the brand.

In a blog-based campaign, the initial posts carry the authentic endorsement of the influencers, and reach their organic audiences, some of whom will engage with the brand by commenting or sharing the content. This content is the irreplaceable foundation of the social strategy. For scale, we then have to amplify.

The amplification strategy has two parts. The first phase broadens the reach of the initial posts with social shares and paid media designed to scale the targeted audience for all the content. The second phase evaluates the best performing content and boosts it on social to extract maximum value from the best content.

Social-first programs generally skip the paid media phase, and jump right to boosting the best performing posts, although I have always wanted to develop a really well-done native ad treatment to amplify Instagram content back to digital with an e-commerce component.

Bottom line, matter how much organic reach your chosen influencers have, it’s never enough. Adding paid amplification delivers the targeted scale needed to maximize message awareness and optimize engagement with the audience.

Organic scale is a myth, but that’s okay. Like most myths, the truth is less sexy but it works just the same.We still can get the results we need.

The post The Myth of Organic Scale first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Newsletters

What’s old is new again. Newsletters are super valuable because they are permission-based; your customer has opted into the sales process by subscribing. Our top of funnel marketing activity logically should focus on getting the customer into our marketing ecosystem. Short of an immediate purchase, subscribing to a newsletter is the next best thing. But focus efforts on subscribers who open and engage with the content; scrub deadweight regularly. A large subscriber count is not the goal. What matters is converting the active subscribers into customers.

Targeted content

We have so much data about customer preferences and purchases in the DMP (data management platform). We should be using data to better target content as well as ads. This is the foundational premise of start-up LiftIgniter, an AI driven personalization engine. It promises to deliver more personalized content to site visitors, learning and improving over time to deliver an optimized visitor experience and increasing stickiness. And ad revenues.

I think publishers should take this idea one step farther, and use such technologies to deliver a better branded content experience to visitors. Users outside the target might see an aligned piece of editorial content that is simply sponsored by the advertiser, while readers/viewers who are known to be interested — “in market” — see a more branded, conversion-oriented piece. This would be a win-win. Advertisers would pay premium fees to reach the targeted, qualified audience with no waste, while the casual visitors see top of funnel awareness-oriented content and aren’t turned off by a harder, irrelevant sell.

Podcasts

Podcasting has been waiting a long time to find its critical mass, and the time, it seems, is now. According to the Pandora Definitive Guide To Audio, podcasts will earn $220million in ad revenues in 2017. Slowly but surely, innovators are solving the content discovery and usability issues that slowed growth of the format, and better listener metrics can’t be far behind. Video will always be important, both branded content and editorial video, but I see podcasts as the big growth opportunity for publishers in 2018. They have lower production costs than video, and offer a more even playing field, in which (so far) Facebook has no special advantages.

The post Predictions for 2018 – Podcasts, Newsletters and Targeted Content first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

—

The struggle, it is real. Digital publishers finally have solid proof that branded content works, and boom, a whole raft of new competitors surface, all looking for that same advertiser dollar.

Digiday covers the problem quite nicely in this piece: As branded content pivots to video, publishers face new challenges. The article focuses on the competition offered by video production houses and entertainment studios, with a passing mention for influencers who approach a brand directly. Its central thesis is that the entertainment studios bring top-notch talent, expertise and a blank slate for the brand message, whereas the digital publisher pitch is about its audience and its editorial voice, which may no longer be enough in the new market realities.

I agree and suggest the following additional points that make it easier to go with the independent production versus the publisher.

• Depending on the property, the editorial voice can make brand integration more or less challenging. If it is too hard, the advertiser looks elsewhere, and then can distribute its content through owned channels, content syndication, native advertising and programmatic.
• The studios and video production houses are more distribution channel agnostic, whereas a publisher will always focus its distribution first on its owned properties. That can make it more costly to reach the total audience, unless the publisher is extraordinarily strong on the desired segment.
• Nearly all video needs to be amplified on social to get the results we desire. The advertiser can buy her audiences from the social platform just as easily as the publisher can. The pitch for the editorial voice, and the implied endorsement of it, has to be stellar for brands to pay upcharges on something it can easily buy itself.

The competition isn’t just coming from entertainment studios and video shops. As Digiday noted, influencers are increasingly able to pitch directly to brands, at a level of production quality equal to the studio product. Brands themselves have more in-house capability, as do their media, strategy and PR agencies. Every publisher faces a certain amount of in-category competition and let’s not forget the social platforms. Facebook could do a little more vertical integration at any moment, and open its own branded content studio, which would be a formidable competitor. Note that I think this scenario is unlikely; Facebook has a vested interest in NOT being directly responsible for the content distributed on its service, thus not likely to broadly embrace strategies that put its Russian-hacking defense in jeopardy.

But still, even if Facebook stays out of it, digital publishers are squeezed by competitors on all sides. Here are some thoughts for surviving this branded content squeeze.

1. Build a branded content studio that has its own reputation for quality storytelling, that can compete for the brand dollar almost independent of your digital distribution. Great Big Story (Turner) and T Brand (New York Times) are two examples of this approach.It is also the most costly in the short-term. In these days of ever-decreasing media margins, if a publisher hasn’t already started down this road, this may not be a viable strategy.
2. Niche. OWN your audience. Make your voice matter. If your publication/channel is the go-to source for the audience, your editorial voice becomes relevant again. Even though the brand can buy your audience elsewhere, it cannot buy your editorial endorsement anywhere but from you.
3. Talent. Become the most efficient way to get the best talent. For some publishers. this means celebrities; for others, success is rooted in building the right community of influencers that you can tap into for branded content, both user generated and house branded.
4. Think beyond video to other channels. I will have more thoughts on this in a future post, but newsletters and podcasts will be important for advertisers in 2018. I also think the ability to tailor content to individual preferences (using all that data we have) will breathe new life into sponsored content. If we know that only the target audience, the presumed interested audience for a message, will see the sponsored post or branded video, we can offer more brand integration and tailor the messaging to drive conversion. Without wasted audience or irritating casual readers.

—

I attended AdTech in New York last week, and met two super-interesting video companies.

Shootsta, based in Australia, offers brands a way to create higher quality social video. Basically, they send you the camera set-up, you film your content, and they do post-production. Targeted at the social media and corp comms folks tasked with feeding the social channels. Not intended to replace corporate video production.

Showbox, based in Israel, attacks the problem from a slightly different angle. It’s a cloud based platform that lets websites/communities/publishers offer professional quality video creation tools to users. I haven’t dug in yet, but it would seem to solve the quality problem of user generated branded content at a more efficient cost than what we used to do, which was have our video producers do the post-production.

The post The branded content S-Q-U-E-E-Z-E first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Yet, we don’t leverage newsletters as well as we could. It is simply too hard to create and send newsletters for most marketing organizations, so we don’t create enough of the super-targeted or opportunistic missives that are more likely to lead to success. Our newsletters are broad and generic, and often deleted unopened. Even those that are offer-driven tend to hit too wide or too late to drive the consumer behavior we want.

Some of the challenges that contribute to this are:

• lack of email systems connectivity to websites and sales/marketing databases, to more efficiently manage the lead flow process and target emails more specifically to consumer interests and behavior;
• design requirements. A well-designed newsletter is more likely to succeed but most marketers aren’t designers, and the design backlog can be a roadblock to getting timely missives “in the mail;”
• organizational silos that put the power of the email newsletter tools in one department, making is difficult for others to harness the tactic for their business objectives.

How can we do better with newsletters? Short of fixing the three challenges I noted above, which are longer term, organizational issues, there are three things you can do immediately.

1. Review YOUR newsletter subscriptions, and think about the ones that actually engage you past the first, heady SUBSCRIBE moment. Which you likely did as the result of another transaction (download a white paper, enter a sweepstakes, purchase a product, etc.) I recently did this as part of a massive INBOX ZERO effort, and pruned a lot of newsletters that I never even opened. The ones that remain (including a few that I remember subscribing to FOR the content) passed one of two tests: I am a customer, want to get the special offers, and have acted on a newsletter at least once or I regularly share on social or use articles in my blog posts;
2. Better target YOUR subscribers that exhibit these engagement behaviors and also target their lookalikes. What content works? What doesn’t? Even if you have lots of subscribers to your newsletters, most of them are passive. Keep sending those passive users your content, because opens do still matter, but spend more time on the engaged readers. Offer them exclusive access or content to increase their loyalty;
3. Scrub your list regularly. Get rid of the subscribers who don’t ever open your content. They just inflate your subscriber numbers which makes your open rate look bad.

Your email newsletters can be one of your most effective community engagement tools. Or they can be digital “bin fodder.”

Your choice.

Updated 18 September to add link to an article from eMarketer reporting on a July 2017 survey by Adobe that puts some quantitative measures to some of the points I discuss in this post.  Not surprisingly, 50% of respondents said the most annoying thing about email marketing was frequency – too much. None of the other reasons even got close to similar significance, BUT among the top complaints were two data-related issues: an offer than makes it clear that the data about me is wrong (24% ) and urging me to buy something I have already purchased (20%).

The post 3 tips for more successful email newsletters first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Quality Content + Audience at Scale + Community =
Sustainable Engagement, Loyalty and Conversion

In my previous post, I presented this marketing equation. It means that for publishers of content, whether a media company or a brand, creating quality content and building a large audience is not sufficient to drive sustainable consumer engagement, loyalty and conversion.

We need a community.

There is a certain “duh” about that statement. Of course community is important. Fandom is the bedrock of social media. But I don’t think we’ve quite hit on how to effectively use community to reach our marketing goals. To truly partner with our community, not just create content for it (the typical publishing model), or build spaces where it can can create its own content or connect with likeminded folks (the social platforms, including blogs).

In this post, I am going to cover a concept for how digital publishers/channels can collaborate with the community to create higher value content. It is by no means the only way to partner with or build community.

The idea:
A content ecosystem created around media sites or brands that seamlessly combines “owned and operated” editorial content with content created by consumers (the community) but on their OWN sites or platforms, not hosted within the media property or brand site. Accompanied by robust revenue shares between the publisher/brand and the community partners.

How we get there:
People don’t visit destination sites the way we did when the web was young and we bookmarked all the sites we loved and checked them frequently for new content. Search and social drive discovery, and loyalty is fleeting, especially in B2C lifestyle content. It is a distributed model, and we may not even be aware of where we are consuming the information  (a problem for another day.)

Tightly focused verticals and B2B, which is sort of a vertical, are slightly different and may still see some success as “destinations,” but the cachet of writing for a mainstream vehicle is far less than it was “back in the day.” Content creators can find their audience and create a community without the endorsement of mainstream brands.

As a result, the model of getting people to create content on a destination site for free just won’t work very well and it doesn’t scale easily (if at all.) That’s not how we consume content, and the value exchange is unbalanced. The content creator gets far less than the site owner; the cachet of writing for a site — even HuffPo — only goes so far. The site owner may not be getting exactly the content it expected either. If you aren’t paying someone, it is much harder to dictate what they produce or maintain your desired content quality.

Syndication is a better choice for the content creator, as it offers the possibility of click-over to the original content site, where the content creator can monetize through advertising and potentially bring the viewer deeper into HER content. The mainstream site owner can control quality by only syndicating content that meets its quality standards and editorial needs.

But syndicated content is rarely integrated with the editorial content alongside which it lives. It disrupts the flow of content experience, just like advertising does. And more so when it is sponsored content syndicated into a native unit within a site.

If we really want to increase the long-term value of content — to publishers, brands, consumers, content creators, everyone — we need a better model.

My ideal content network is a community-centered editorial ecosystem. With an integrated editorial strategy that leverages the contributions of the publisher/brand and the distributed sites on the community network, somewhat like a hub and its spokes.

How many spokes? 20-25 contributing sites that really match the editorial mission. If you cover multiple vertical markets, 15 or so per vertical, depending on how many verticals you have. You really don’t want more than 100 or so content partners in the editorial community. Because you have to deliver a high degree of service to maximize the value – yours to them as a content and probably advertising partner, and theirs to you as content producers in your ecosystem that will help you deliver a great content experience and scale more easily. Remember: they continue to invest in building their audience just as you do yours. The collective effort increases scale beyond the capacity of any individual.

When a viewer finds a piece of content — however and wherever she enters your ecosystem, she is offered additional content that matches her interests through contextual matching, behavioral targeting and as she comes back, knowledge of her content consumption. What does she love? What content is she more likely to engage with? Offer her the best matches, both on the site and across all the content partners.

What’s the tech that does this? I have some ideas, based on things I have been working on recently, but this doesn’t have to be complicated to start. It is a simple commitment to build an integrated content strategy with the community, where content lives equally in both places.

Why does this matter so much? Consumers are already banner blind unless they are actively seeking. Without some innovation, they will become equally blind to native advertising, which is the most relied upon method for scaling sponsored content. I also expect that midroll ads on Facebook video are going to impact video completion rates far more than preroll did. It’s disruptive, and consumers hate being disrupted. (Side bar: I am already sick of the insurance company souffle.)

These common ad formats won’t go away. They have their place in the ecosystem, but it is largely top of funnel, driving awareness and interest. If we want to drive down the purchasing funnel, we need to engage consumers with our message, and convert them to customers.

Branded content, and most specifically influencer content, is the key. Consumers are more likely to trust influencer recommendations than any other source when it comes to purchasing a product (Source: In the Company of Friends, SheKnows/Research Narrative Influencer Marketing Study, October 1, 2015, PDF.)

By creating a more hospitable ecosystem for influencer content, in which we seamlessly move within the content network, the experience of reading or viewing sponsored content is less disruptive. We’ve already accustomed our reader to following her interests across our network with our “regular” content. The branded content experience looks much the same. Anchoring branded content or video, usually on the brand or mainstream media site (but not necessarily,) seamlessly integrated with influencer content on other blogs or social platforms. With the right intelligent tools, we could even target sponsored content to the most likely consumers, eliminating the circulation “waste” of readers that are not in the target demo.

As I noted above, you wouldn’t need hundreds of influencers as content creation partners in such a community ecosystem. 20, 25 per content area or niche. But you could complement the vertical networks with microinfluencer activations and social marketing promotions on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. If you didn’t want to build out your own group of social influencers, there are PLENTY of agencies and software platforms that you can contract on a campaign or annual license basis.

This model is far from complete as I’ve described it here, and there are a number of considerations not even mentioned, but we’ve been circling around this idea of community-centered publishing for years. HuffPo built the first relatively successful model where folks would write for free, and Medium came along to scale it, but neither quite got there in the end. HuffPo is at its core a contributor-fueled website that sells ads. Medium had no center to serve as the hub for the spokes of distributed content, making it too hard for advertisers to buy. From Medium. Without the hub that adds value, brands can create influencer marketing programs on their own. No need to come to a publisher.

YouTube has a revenue share model with its content creators, but it too is center-less, relying on brands and content creators to create broadcast channels for some semblance of structure. It’s still very much the wild wild west. Other media businesses, from BlogHer and SheKnows to CafeMom/Media and the now-shuttered Mode developed variations on this theme, and got very close, but each time, one side of the ecosystem dominated, either the O&O channel/site or the partner network.

Largely because the media industry wasn’t ready for such a distributed model.

For this ecosystem to work, the two sides need to be equally  important, content partners. Decisions about where content runs are driven by creating the highest long term value for the content and consumer relationships, which creates the value for the partner sites.  Ownership — of content, even of exclusive relationships, is less important than results and creation of value. This is not the usual way we do things. When valuing a company, one of the first questions is what do you own – content, technology, exclusive contracts. In our distributed model, we don’t own all the assets, but we are using them in proprietary ways to create value.

And everybody wins.

Especially the customers, who get quality content about the topics and brands they love, from a variety of trusted voices, editors and consumer advocates alike.

I think and hope we are ready now. I’d love to build this.

15 September: Updated to add link to an excellent column by Jack Myers: How Wall St. Priorities are Damaging the Media Ecosystem

Final post in the series (for now) will be some thoughts about video specifically.

The post The future of digital media: Creating a new content ecosystem first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Of late, I have been thinking a lot about how we make content more successful. Especially branded content, but really any content.

Whether a publisher, who monetizes content through advertising, or a brand, which monetizes content through product sales, fundamentally all content is created with two objectives:

• to inform, educate or entertain the audience;
• to serve as a vehicle for advertising messages, including display, native, branded content, catalogs, shopping carts.

As marketers, our goal is to create the most successful content we can: well written or produced content (quality) consumed by the largest possible volume of interested consumers (scale), with the best outcome possible for advertised products— increased awareness, preference, trial or sale, depending on the KPI (conversion.) The standardized measures of success are pageviews, ad impressions, clicks, conversions and for extra credit, time on site and repeat visitors.

Search engines changed the way we find content, and social has amplified the mercurial nature of the consumer. We no longer habitually bookmark our favorite sites and rarely browse through a publication in the “I feel lucky mode.” With the possible exception of publications that we actually pay for, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or Washington Post, we don’t “read the paper.” We search, we follow friend’s social recommendations, and maybe, just maybe,if we enjoy our experience on a site, we remember and are more likely to visit the next time it turns up in search or social. Nirvana for the publisher: we have such a good experience with a site, we subscribe to its newsletter and enter its content ecosystem.

But with organic search and social, we aren’t really targeting the information seeker. She is pulling content based on her interests.

Advertising is different. When we are paying, we can and do target.

Ad targeting has transformed the ad side of the digital media industry, from the data management platform (DMP) to the increasing dominance of programmatic in the advertising mix. We are really good at finding the audience.

Certainly we should use caution, and sometimes skepticism, when considering audience demographics — think of the recent New York Times report that Facebook estimates its young American audience to be 25 million more than the actual number of 18-34 year olds in last year’s US census — but third-party tools from Nielsen and comScore help validate audience claims. At a minimum, they put everyone on the same, comparable playing field, which gives advertisers directional guidance.

Dodgy marketing claims aside, we are better at finding and reporting on audiences than ever before.

The question is, how do we get them to come back, to consume more content. To become loyal readers or viewers who consume a lot of content on each visit. Who engage with our branded content at the same level as our organic content. Who convert into customers.

Because, for publishers, re-selling each viewer at a slight mark-up for what it cost to acquire that page or video view is not sustainable. Unless you add measurable value to that view, such as increased conversions, the pyramid will eventually collapse. Brands will figure out that they can buy those views, that awareness, cheaper if they go direct.

Even then, even if they go direct, brands will not continue to pour cash into the funnel —whether YouTube or Facebook or programmatic media or influencer posts — to acquire views that do not convert into engaged viewers and customers.

The key is community. Tapping successfully into ones that form naturally “in the wild,” creating new ones, temporary at first, ideally permanent, around the content we create, and feeding the community with the additional sustaining value – informational, transactional, exclusive, financial – that encourages deeper engagement beyond the simple view or click to buy.

Your community is in your audience, but they are not synonymous. You will (hopefully) always have a much larger potential audience than you will an engaged community. But it is in your community that you find your evangelists, your influencers, your advocates. The audience members that will become your partners in promoting, in creating new customers.

Now, I am not so foolish as to think that this is a new idea. The essential value of community in marketing has long been known. Community is the underlying fuel of social media marketing, the entire gaming ecosystem, successful loyalty programs and multilevel marketing. Among others.

But I think we have only dabbled at the edges of how community can drive success for those of us publishing, and monetizing, content on the web.

It looks something like this:

Quality Content + Audience at Scale + Community =

Sustainable Engagement, Loyalty and Conversion

The post The future of digital media: The value of community first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

This week, an interesting piece on Digiday, The ‘demonetized’: YouTube’s brand-safety crackdown has collateral damage, reported, among other things, that the tools used by YouTube to identify and demonetize unsafe content were often inconsistently or inaccurately applied, causing sharp declines in revenues for many creators, especially those with smaller channels focused on news, politics, social issues and gaming.

Programmatic media buying, which matches audience to impressions, has, if not created, certainly exacerbated the problem of unsafe, unsavory content hosting ads for brands that otherwise would NEVER advertise against that content. On the flip side, programmatic, AI-powered, media blocking may have over-corrected the problem, blacklisting sites that brands otherwise might have wanted to advertise on. Satire. Social commentary. Criticism.

At the same time, I think we are on the brink of a shift in how we experience video content, that brings us back to the spirit of the early days of television. When programming wasn’t just content and audience = ratings point or view = success.

It was a shared experience.

After the first heady rush to digital video a few years ago, publishers realized that building good content wasn’t enough. “If you build it, they will come” is still only true in movies about baseball. We had to draw the right audience to the content. “Eyeballs.” Something that proved difficult for digital-only properties, less troublesome perhaps for owners of broadcast franchises. Over the past year, concurrent with the shift to programmatic media and the rise of OTT, audience became the mantra of the moment. Perhaps even more valuable in some respects than the quality of the content.

But this won’t last. It’s not sustainable and the audiences are not necessarily loyal. If you have to buy every viewer for a fraction less than you sold it for, the pyramid will eventually collapse.

“Eyeballs” don’t fall in love with your program. People do.

What we need is to develop compelling content, reach the right audience and then develop loyal communities of viewers that want to share the experience with each other, not just watch and maybe click through to a sponsor now and then. It comes down, again, to fans.

As I commented last week, the finale of Game of Thrones demonstrates that people will watch in real time, if the content is strong enough, and the shared experience valuable enough. Not only will they watch, but also they will become advocates for the programming. With the right community marketing strategy, their advocacy can extend to the sponsors of the programming, and program advocates become brand evangelists. And, bonus, they don’t actually HAVE to watch in real time for the loyal, committed advocate audience to develop. We just need to feed it well.

That is our branded content and native advertising opportunity. Not to mention the more lucrative opportunity for video creators.

It’s not as easy as media sales. It doesn’t scale as simply as impressions. But the connections forged through shared experience, shared values, are infinitely stronger for brands as well as fans. When we target our advertising to the content and the audience together, we also avoid the problem of adjacency to unsavory content.

What’s old is new.

Again.

Updated 10 Sept: 

Late last week, Salon announced that it had inked a deal with Tout to combine Salon Media’s current video distribution on Facebook Live, Twitter, and Salon.com with Tout’s targeted video programming across more than 3,500 publisher partner sites. What this really means is buried in press release gobbledy-gook but my take is that Salon wanted scaled distribution and Tout needed better, more relevant, more engaging content.

It is not enough to have amazing content or a huge audience. You need both. And IMO, to succeed longterm, you need community.

The post The true measure of video success: fans, not eyeballs first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The most important lesson of Game of Thrones this year? No, not that incest is okay if you have buns of steel, although for the record, IMO the Jon/Dany incest angle is far less interesting than the power dynamics their blood relationship causes. The real lesson is what Ed Martin discusses in his piece “Game of Thrones” Transcended Technology in Season 7: people WILL engage with entertainment in real time.

His article focuses on the storytelling, which was excellent and pushed just about every emotional button the audience has, but only hints at what I think is the stronger force at work: the community.

People wanted to watch together. To discuss, to rant, to scream, to ooh and aah, together. No one wanted to spoil, or be spoiled, so the best solution was to watch together. At the same time. On Twitter and in private discussion groups and at home and anywhere else humans congregate, really and virtually.

The power of the shared experience. That is the most important lesson.

And for extra credit, note that GoT feeds its community very well. Behind the scenes videos released after the episodes that extend the experience. The steady drumbeat of press tours and convention appearances combined with the general likability of the show stars. And yes, merchandise.

To summarize:

1. Create amazing content that engages the community and encourages a desire, a demand for the shared experience
2. Feed the community well: news, merchandise, opportunities to engage with the brand
3. Build excitement for the real time experience, harnessing the power of the community to do so. HBO promotion could only go so far. We the viewers built the flames even higher. Fan speculation. Fan art. Fanfic. GoT discussion groups.

It starts with the content, but the secret ingredient is the community.

Photo: publicity still from Episode 7, courtesy HBO

The post A Marketing Lesson from Game of Thrones first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

This idea of the sharp left turn, with or without God in the mix, seems a much better metaphor for those moments in life that not only may seem catastrophic, but also actually (and surprisingly) feel that way too. Such as my sudden unemployment last month when a re-organization at my company eliminated my role. No matter how amicable the parting, and it was 100%, losing my job was still a shock.

The sharp left turn is so much more appropriate than “when one door closes, another one opens,” which, while often accurate, doesn’t address the gut-wrenching feeling that accompanies being laid off.

The uncertainty of #funemployment. The adrenaline rush when the possibilities start to gel into opportunities. The let-down when something doesn’t come through.

The sharp left turn? That’s a survival moment. You made the turn and are moving in the right direction.

Right now, I am still smack dab in the middle of the turn. No longer looking back, just looking forward but not entirely sure when the turn will end. Or where.

But I think back to the last time I was laid off in a reorganization in 2004.

Sharp left.

I had spent 10 years doing basically the same thing. Moving through various roles from Director to Senior Vice President. for multiple companies, as organizations were acquired. But in the end, I spent 10 years promoting internet filtering software to protect children from porn and corporate productivity from, well, also porn. And shopping, which is porn of a different sort I suppose. This was back in the earliest days of the commercial Internet. Before blogs. Before social media. Before WiFi.

It was time for a change. I didn’t want to simply go to work in marketing for another B2B/B2C software company. So I decided to build a consulting practice.

One of the very first things I did was attend an American Marketing Association (AMA) panel on blogging. And found my future.

My consulting practice quickly morphed from general sales and marketing to helping companies large and small integrate blogging and social media into their business strategy. I spoke at the first BlogHer conference in 2005, and met some of the best friends and colleagues I have ever had. I was privileged to write Professional Blogging For Dummies for Wiley, co-founded Blog With Integrity, and spoke at conferences all over the country about social media and marketing.

In 2010, my trajectory led to my dream job with BlogHer in New York.

It has been an amazing seven years. Creating successful branded content and influencer marketing programs for brands. Collaborating with my colleagues to create some of the very first social media marketing programs on Twitter and Facebook. Helping thousands of women make money with their social media presence. Partnering with team-mates to integrate BlogHer products and services when we were acquired by SheKnows in 2014. Developing strategies for scaling influencer content beyond the original blog or social post. Creating models for performance and predictive analytics for branded content, native media and influencer marketing.

August 2017: Sharp left. Still in the turn. Looking forward to the road ahead.

Hat tip to Suzy Soro, the Facebook friend who shared the anecdote.

The post The Sharp Left Turn first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Turns out, pretty easy, at least for the two profiles the firm created – one focused on beauty, and the other on travel, not coincidentally I am certain, two content areas where Instagram is particularly strong, and the demand high for influencers with scale.

This has spawned a great deal of coverage in the industry trades over the past week, including AdWeek, PR giant Edelman  and Digiday. All bemoaning the fact that it is possible to game a social network and artificially inflate followers and engagement.

I’m mostly surprised that anyone IS surprised. The demand for volume, for more, more, more – bigger reach, more likes, more clicks — is bound to lead to both fraud and waste. It did in advertising, in search of the almighty click, and it has in social, in search of likes, comments, shares AND clicks.

Let’s take the two problems separately. Fraud is the intent to deceive by artificially inflating numbers, whether buying followers or engagements. Waste is the natural by-product of scale. Not every legitimate viewer/reader of a message is the target, no matter how good our demographic and behavioral targeting. Even today, with the phenomenal matching made possible by programmatic advertising, there will be waste, and targeting on social is a mixed bag. You can do it within a social platform like Facebook, but not across platforms.

In my opinion, the platforms are responsible for posting the first level of defense against fraud in influencer marketing. The social platforms, to police the activity and manage fraudulent accounts effectively. The influencer platforms, to build similar checks and balances into their technology so brands can trust their influencer recommendations.

Managing the impact of waste, however, is part of the influencer marketing strategy. Our best offense is to put scale in its proper place in the strategy. Quantity – followers, likes, comments, shares, clicks – is not the only metric that matters. Quality of engagement is just as important. In the long run, perhaps more important. That means balancing your strategy, and including tactics that lead to deeper engagements with your current and potential customers as well as broader, more volume-centric microinfluencer tactics.

Remember: the influencer who matters is your customer. Always. That’s why influencer marketing works.

The post Influencer Marketing and Instagram: The peril of quantity over quality – MediaKix’s fake Instagram project first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

In the early days, when blogs and social were new and shiny, return on investment was “squishy.” As influencer marketing matures, so too do the expectations, and the measurement models.

Measurement models are shifting from soft “potential reach” to firmer engagement models, and a better understanding of true awareness (eyeballs, lift) across all platforms, not just the easier-to-measure website ad impressions and content views. The best predictive models look at both awareness and engagement, to provide the necessary context for brands trying to decide which type of content will best deliver to the marketing plan.

How many people see the content across all opportunities – native, social, pageviews. defines REACH or AWARENESS. How many people act on it (clicks, likes, shares) is ENGAGEMENT.

Engagement rates will continue to be important, especially as we are increasingly able to link social actions with purchases through longitudinal studies like Nielsen Catalina, and foot traffic studies that can link a social visitor with a real life visitor, but these are expensive, and more likely to be used by large CPG and retail advertisers with big budgets. Not universal. Yet.

In the meantime, while we wait for the nirvana of proving engagement drove purchase — knowing whether someone who read that blog post last year, purchased it this year, we will rely on brand lift studies from Nielsen, Millward Brown and others, and first party reporting combined with original research. OpenUp is a start-up doing interesting work in the space of linking digital engagement with content to eventual purchase.

Advertisers want to understand the return on branded content, including influencer marketing, in the same way they evaluate their other advertising activities. Cost Per View is emerging as an AWARENESS metric alongside the click-through rate and the effective CPM that advertisers use to evaluate the overall efficiency of a media plan.

Re-visioning Measurement: A model for digital content marketing 

When a marketing tactic is new, we tend to be a little forgiving when it comes to measurement. It is simply not possible to be first to market, and also have a case study to evaluate before you make your decision. We operate on gut, on past experiences that are similar, out of a desire to experiment with the new tactic. We monitor and measure, but it is to establish a benchmark, not against a benchmark.

As the tactic evolves and matures, however, a body of work begins to emerge. Successes and failures, near misses and home runs, all combine to give some indication of what works. And what doesn’t. We are at that inflection point with content marketing, and particularly with influencer marketing. Benchmarks are emerging left, right and center.

Problem is — many of these benchmarks are either the very simple pageview and click-through-rate (CTR) we started with or defined by the different technology platforms people are using, thus hard to compare with each other. In some cases, they measure things because they can, not because the measure is useful or relevant, a criticism I have oft levied at Google Analytics.

In addition to CTRs, content program benchmarks tend to rely on views (page, video, slide) to show reach, and comments and earned social to demonstrate engagement. At publishers that scale content through native, native CTRs get added to the mix. This is a good start, but volume based measurements don’t allow you to compare tactics with different budgets. More budget nearly always delivers more volume.

Adding to the complexity, Facebook and the other social platforms report in the context of their platform – likes, comments, shares – and are more than a little opaque unless you are the account owner. This makes it challenging for advertisers trying to understand their earned media. We can count it, we just have a harder time understanding the person who shared it.

Plus things change. Not every day but it feels like it.

We need to simplify to make the data we collect useful to marketers. Capture key points that let us understand the success of a particular campaign and the component tactics AND compare the campaign to other campaigns, the tactics to other tactics.

Simplify. Standardize.

Every marketing tactic we use has an awareness and an engagement component. We want you to pay attention and then do something. Isolate those and look at them separately to understand the performance of each tactic against its goals. You can also aggregate each measure to understand how the overall campaign performed.

Views — Awareness
While reach will always be important as a general gauge for awareness — the potential or available audience for a message — we need to move past who MIGHT see something, and evaluate our campaigns based on who actually did. To standardize across all platforms, we use views and actions as proxies to estimate the engaged audience of digital content.

Actions — Engagement
Absolute numbers are great to understand the VOLUME of your social engagement, but if you want to compare tactics, you need to use rates. This corrects for size. Our old friend the Click-Through-Rate is still strong here, and lets us compare all our tactics against a single measure. But, it isn’t the only useful RATE we can calculate.

We can also look at an overall engagement rate for a campaign, defined as Total Engagements/Total Reach.

For content, look at the content engagement rate. Of the people who read something, how many shared it with others? Or simply commented.

Content Engagement Rate = Actions/Views

For video, the video completion rate (completed views/total views) remains an important measure, but it underestimates the success of the content. Looking at the ratio of viewers who watched at least 25% of the video (or more than 10 seconds on Facebook) gives a more accurate measure of the video success. You can also look at content engagement rates for video.

Social is a bit more squirrely when it comes to standardized measurements across platforms. We have reach and engagements, but we don’t always have access to actual viewers of a social action due to platform and cost barriers. If we own the channel, we have better data, but influencer data depends on whether the platform allows third-party access, and if so, how much it costs to get and use it.

Right now, I am intrigued by content and sentiment analysis as the path to understanding message penetration on social. Because both paths — audience and content analysis — are on the pricey side, we collectively tend to rely on engagement metrics to understand results on social. We have the data, and we can efficiently compare across platforms.

I recommend looking at two measurements here:

• Engagements:Followers
• The ratio of earned:paid.

SUMMARY TABLE: CONTENT MARKETING BENCHMARKS

Cost Per View: Quantifying Awareness
Finally, even though we don’t have visibility into every view of our messages on social due to the walled gardens created by the social platforms, we can get to a very conservative estimate of how many people saw our message, and calculate a Cost Per View.

Cost Per View = Budget/Views

What’s a view? What goes into that side of the equation?

• Pageviews, slide views, video views
• Viewable native ad impressions. Regardless of clicks.
• Viewable content amplification ad impressions. Regardless of clicks.
• Earned social engagements. This is a PROXY for viewers that we can apply across all social platforms. If someone shared or liked or commented, we know they saw it. This will undercount, but it is a start.

Important: Evaluate Cost Per View against your overall content marketing campaign: Native Ads plus Content Amplification Ads plus Branded Content plus Influencer Content plus Social Promotion. Some tactics are more efficient at views than others, while others are stronger down funnel. Content creation will always be more expensive than promotion, but you need the content to promote. And so on.

Where do we go from here?
No single metric is the silver bullet. A tactic with a high cost per view can generate amazing engagement or be the perfect content base for a scale promotion. Or both. We also need to look at these measurements side by side with third party research that measures brand lift or foot traffic or message penetration, and layer in our actual sales results to get the full picture. But the important first step is to begin standardizing our metrics so we can compare campaign performance month to month, year to year, and isolate the tactics that are both efficient and effective.

More of what works, less of what doesn’t.

The post ROI and Influencer Marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

But how widespread is the concern? Do marketers in general understand the potential damage to their brand if their ads are adjacent to dubiously sourced or out and out untrue content? Or how easy it is for this adjacency to happen in open programmatic marketplaces that are matching impressions to audience, not content?

The Conference Board’s Society for New Communications Research (SNCR) is beginning a research project to explore this issue. The goal is to understand how businesses contribute to the problem, particularly with ad-supported media models that make “fake news” lucrative, and identify actions that marketers can take to mitigate the impact on their businesses, and ultimately society.

Read more about the problem and the SNCR research project: SNCR Takes on Fake News 

The post Could “fake news” harm your brand? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

First things first. There are no new FTC Guidelines for Advertising Disclosures. Still the same basic rules we’ve been working with for years:

• Disclose material relationships. If an influencer is compensated, whether cash or in-kind, she has a material relationship with the brand.
• Clear, conspicuous disclosure in proximity to the endorsement. Unambiguous language. Placed where the consumer will see/hear it when she sees or hears the brand mention, the endorsement.
• Accurate. The influencer and the advertiser both have an obligation to strive for accuracy and correct errors.

More details in my  FTC Disclosure Guidance deck.

What we did get in April was additional FTC guidance on the disclosures.

FTC guidance typically comes when the agency takes an enforcement action. In this case, it was the 90 letters to various celebrities and celebrity influencers who regularly promote brands using insufficient or unclear disclosures, sent in response to a complaint from watchdog group Public Citizen last Fall.

Generally, FTC guidance focuses on what to NOT do by highlighting practices that it deems insufficient. The FTC does not give an exact blueprint on the right way to disclose a brand relationship. If someone tells you (and I have heard this): “This is the official FTC disclosure,” they do not know what they are talking about. There is no standard, official disclosure. Just guidelines and guidance and the business practices we have developed to comply.

What was in the current guidance? Nothing surprising to those of us that have actually read the guidelines and previous guidance. The only surprising thing was that the agency took the step to reach out to influencers. Typically it focuses on advertiser compliance, for example the Lord & Taylor Instagram dress campaign of March 2015, settled in March 2016.

Here are some of the reasons I think they took the step of addressing influencers directly.

First, letters were sent to celebrities with massive followings. We don’t know exactly who received letters but names in the Public Citizen complaint included David Beckham, Mark Wahlberg, Jenny McCarthy, Chris Pratt and Kendall Jenner. Whether or not celebrities have to disclose has been a source of much confusion, but the test is pretty clear — what will the consumer understand? When the celebrity is in a television or print advertisement, or an athlete is wearing her sponsor’s gear as she performs, the audience has a good understanding of the relationship of the celebrity to the brand. The context tells us. On Instagram, where most of the reported infractions were posted, we have no such context. Everyone is technically, literally technically, the same on Instagram. My posts are viewed by my followers in exactly the same interface as Kim Kardashian West’s view hers. Without disclosure, we don’t know whether the endorsement was sponsored.

Second, the disclosures that folks were using were inadequate. Phrases like “in partnership with” or “my partner,” the hashtag #sp (which has been on record as inadequate for years) and branded hashtags are not sufficient disclosures. Mixing up the disclosure with a bunch of hashtags or putting it at the end of a post where it might not be seen are not sufficient disclosures.

The clearest disclosure on platforms that don’t have character limits is Sponsored Post (or Video or Content), and on platforms that have character limits, #sponsored or #ad. Placed at/near the beginning of the endorsement, especially on posts that truncate on mobile like Instagram. In fact, the FTC was unusually specific when it came to this point, apparently in all the letters:

“…the letters each addressed one point specific to Instagram posts — consumers viewing Instagram posts on mobile devices typically see only the first three lines of a longer post unless they click “more,” which many may not do. The staff’s letters informed recipients that when making endorsements on Instagram, they should disclose any material connection above the “more” button.” (from the FTC press release)

Finally, the problem was spreading. Increasingly, brands are turning to influencers instead of traditional agencies.  Especially on Instagram. The longer the FTC let the inadequate disclosures stand, the harder it would be to rein it in. Issuing enforcement letters to celebrities, not just big social influencers, guaranteed a certain amount of media coverage to help the agency get the facts in front of consumers and influencers. In addition to its press release and media outreach, the agency posted the news on both its consumer and BTB blogs.

Bottom line — we are far better off creating amazing content that our audience will love, sponsored and unsponsored alike, than trying to evade the disclosure requirements. Using obscure and inadequate disclosures, especially when there is intent to deceive, betrays the trust of the audience. Don’t do it. It’s not fair to your audience and the FTC is watching.

—

In other disclosure news, Facebook has expanded the availability of its branded content tool. ALL Facebook pages that post sponsored content must post it through the branded content tool, which labels the post as PAID. This ensures that sponsored content is adequately disclosed on Facebook even if the organic disclosure is not strong. The branded content tool is currently only available for PAGES. Apply here; turnaround is about 2 days. You no longer have to be verified, and approval to use the branded content tool does NOT mean you are verified (blue check.)

The post Disclosing sponsored content: Celebrities, Instagram and the FTC first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The Future of Influencer Marketing (BConnected Conference).

With all my thanks to a wonderful audience.

The post The Future of Influencer Marketing @ BConnected Conference first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

First and foremost, influence is not simply writing a blog post or sharing an item on a social platform. While 68% of Americans use Facebook (Source: Pew), the most ubiquitous of the social platforms, we wouldn’t consider them all to be influencers. For our purposes, influence requires both intent and action; the person endorsing (or disparaging) a product intends for others to be influenced by their comments, and those others are actually (and preferably provably) impacted by the opinion. Influence is that moment where endorsement sparks action.

Trust is the currency of this social ecosystem. We trust influencers — people like us — more than any other digital source when it comes to purchase decisions. Influencers are trusted more than brands, industry leaders, publishers and celebrities, and 68% of women social media users report making a purchase as a result of an influencer recommendation (Source: In the Company of Friends, SheKnows/Research Narrative Influencer Marketing Study, October 1, 2015, PDF).

Who are these influencers? In 2017, most influencer marketing strategies will tap into three types of influencer: the mid-tier content creator, celebrity influencers and microinfluencers.

Let’s start with the most familiar – the mid-tier content creator. For the past few years, the most prolific influencers have been the mid-tier content creators, often referred to as the “magic middle.” Most are active, daily users of Facebook and at least one or two additional platforms. She posts on her blog 2-3 times per week, with somewhere between 100,000-300,000 average monthly page views (MPVs). She loves creating authentic sponsored content for the brands she loves, but her primary motivation is to entertain and inform her readers. (Source: In the Company of Friends, PDF)

Most importantly, she is both the customer and a conduit to other customers who are highly likely to engage with her content, by sharing, liking, commenting, and yes, trying and buying products. In my opinion, she is the most productive candidate for long-term brand ambassador programs because other consumers will trust and follow her personal product journey.

However, no single mid-tier influencer will personally reach millions of consumers. To achieve this sort of scale, marketers turn to, at one end of the spectrum, microinfluencers, and at the other, the celebrity influencers.

A microinfluencer is a consumer who actively uses her social channels to support brand marketing objectives. Anyone can write an Amazon Review or share a product experience on Twitter or Facebook, but it’s a bit like the tree falling in the woods when no one is present. With only a few followers or an occasional reader, the endorsement has little impact. Scale, and measurable results, are achieved when we aggregate the small actions of many influencers, organized around a single message.

Who is the microinfluencer? She is, quite literally, all of us; consumers with as few as 100 followers who love brands and love sharing them with others. We harness their power by working with hundreds, thousands of them at once, all sharing a similar and simple message to their friends. In the past, these sort of promotions have been limited to product sampling and couponing. With improvements in influencer marketing technology that allow brands to loosely script the social shares (so the message doesn’t get lost in the transmission by so many individuals), and to process micropayments to these individuals in the $1-2 per social share range, we have already seen an increase in more sophisticated scale social promotions. 2017 will bring more.

At the other end of the spectrum is the celebrity influencer. This is a blogger or social influencer with millions of readers and followers. She isn’t a celebrity in the traditional sense — actor, politician, heir/heiress, music superstar etc. — but like those famous people, she is just as likely to be engaging with brands on behalf of her audience than she is to be an actual customer of your product. Her endorsement is thus very similar to a celebrity endorsement; to the degree she is a trusted tastemaker, it will drive awareness, but the celebrity influencer often has a much lower engagement rate than her mid-tier counterpart. Of course her overall audience is that much larger, so she still may be reaching more consumers. When comparing the celebrity with the mid-tier influencer, keep that in mind. The sheer number of people the celebrity influencer reaches is not to be ignored or dismissed.

Who is the celebrity influencer? In our experience, she is a blogger with a unique story and strong audience and social following, a great video personality with a large YouTube following or an Instagram star. Like real-life celebrities, her endorsement is costly. When using celebrity influencers, it is important to have a very clear vision of the return on the investment.

Success with influencer marketing in 2017 starts with identifying the right type of influencer for the story you want to tell and understanding your performance objective — awareness, engagement, product trial, purchase.

Critical though is to set up your measurement models to match your objective, both for understanding the end result and optimizing performance during the campaign. I’ll cover that in my next post.

The post Influencer Marketing Landscape 2017 first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

So I thought I’d start by sharing the article versions of the BConnected session, starting with this piece, The evolution of consumer-to-consumer marketing (Part 1 of 4).

—

Influencer marketing is a top trend in 2017. So much so that according to industry research shop eMarketer, nearly half of US marketers intend to increase their influencer marketing budgets in 2017.

But, as the song goes, “How did we get here?”

Let’s take a look at the evolution of consumer marketing — from the earliest village square to the mass markets of 20th century advertising back to an albeit much larger consumer-driven marketplace, in which customers have quite possibly the strongest voice in the marketing mix.

Consumers have been sharing their opinions with each other for as long as we have had marketplaces. Whether Ancient Greece, Medieval Europe or Imperial China, the opinion of your neighbor likely mattered, and some, by virtue of birth or achievement, assumed the mantle of tastemakers and had wider influencer beyond their own personal sphere.

Modern advertising, largely a product of the industrial revolution and the rise of mass communication, grew out of the effort to scale endorsement when personal contact was no longer feasible. But endorsement never went out of style. Harnessing the recommendation of “someone like me” has long been the holy grail of modern advertising. Celebrities became stand-ins for the tastemakers, and in consumer product advertising, actors are cast as proxies for real people so those real people — the target audience — identify with the endorsment. The copywriter who wrote “mmm mmm good” was not a cherubic small child nor her mother, and while Mikey may have liked it , he certainly didn’t write the line.

The computer age breathed new life into consumer-to-consumer marketing, from the very earliest of days, when forums on Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, and Usenet newsgroups gave consumers a place to share experiences and recommend products and services to each other, in private non-commercial spaces. And then the early 90s brought a commercialized World Wide Web and the birth of digital advertising.

Digital changed literally everything. No longer did we have to guess at reach or exposure. Or wait for circulation audits. Impressions, clicks, page views, bounce rate, everything there to be counted. It also lowered the barrier to entry. Anyone could be a web publisher with a minimal investment in tech and a smattering of HTML. With the rise of review sites like Yelp and others, every consumer could be a consumer reporter.

By the turn of the century, the stage was set for a significant shift in the role of the consumer endorsement in modern marketing — the blogger. Over the same period that the “citizen journalist” was turning traditional news media on its head, this consumer marketer rose to prominence — a consumer who understood her role as both customer and conduit to other consumers through her blog, and later with the advent of Twitter and Facebook, her social channels.

Circa 2005-2006, the very earliest stages, we called it “blogger relations,” and often used a public relations-based model of unpaid outreach, but for many reasons beyond the scope of this post, it morphed very quickly into a compensated model, and a more inclusive nomenclature — influencer marketing.

Today, blogs are still a central component in most influencer strategies, but social platforms also play a prominent role, especially Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Regardless of distribution platform, video is increasingly important as brands see proof that influencer videos get more traction than brand-produced ones. For example, according to Internet video firm Pixability, 86 percent of the most-viewed beauty videos on YouTube were made by influencers, compared to 14 percent by beauty brands themselves.

Regardless of where she publishes, the social influencer acts as customer, publisher and consumer marketer, and has become a necessary part of the marketing strategy, whether a brand is actively engaging or not.

—

Part 2 covers the changing shape of influence and Part 3, ROI and measurement. Part 4 concludes the series with my updated advice to influencers who want to work with brands.

The post The evolution of consumer-to-consumer marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The damage to the firm’s brand goes well beyond one or two faux pas. Sexual assault of female passengers  and sexual harassment of female employees being a particular problem. Before it should engage with consumers directly through social influencers, Uber needs to actually fix that which is broken. Time for talk has passed. Time to walk.

The following day, I read an opinion piece by Uber investors Mitch and Freada Kapor that called on the company to do that very thing. Really fix its problems, not just promise to fix and do nothing substantive or sustaining.

Think about that for a minute. Investors so concerned about the situation, and so stymied by the regular channels of communication that they felt their only recourse was a public, open letter.

Something similar happened in the “momosphere” this past weekend. While I am not privy to all the details, the general gist is that two employees of a non-profit quit very publicly, detailing systemic racism and microaggressions in their posts, and others were quick to corroborate their stories, also very publicly.

How bad is the crisis, when insiders feel there is no possibility of change from within, and they literally take to the streets? Publicly and with attribution, as distinct from an anonymous source like Watergate’s Deep Throat or any number of rogue Twitter accounts sharing salacious details from the Trump White House.

And what does that mean for the organization under siege?

Fundamentally, when things get to this point, Public Relations As Usual is too little, too late. When the folks are figuratively marching in the streets, you need to respond in kind — with passion and commitment to change. Keeping in mind that you may NEVER do enough to satisfy the critics, but you have to try. Seriously try to fix your broken product.

You can’t expect things to turnaround overnight either. The things you do and say right away are just the start. You have to stay the course. Your public has to see that the changes you promise are real and sustainable. Especially if they have heard it before, but the followthrough was lacking.

Anything less than real commitment to change will not be enough.

The post Managing Crisis: When Insiders Go Public first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

In my job at BlogHer, and now at SheKnows Media following its acquisition of BlogHer, I am privileged to work with our client brands and our community experts, bloggers and social influencers on some truly excellent sponsored content programs. To start off this year, in my next few posts I will share a few of my favorites from 2014, along with why I think the content created in these programs was so compelling and successful. Actual results are confidential, but I can share that the programs delivered strong brand engagement.

Here are the first two: JCPenney and Chevrolet Traverse.

JCPenney – Five bloggers were selected to participate in an 8 month brand ambassador program, creating content for their own blogs, sharing with their followers on their social graph and contributing to JCPenney’s Pinterest boards.

Why I love this program: The extended timeframe allowed the bloggers to really get to know the brand, and vice versa!! During a two-day immersion event at JCPenney headquarters in Plano, Texas, the bloggers were treated to presentations from JCPenney fashion, hair and home style experts as well as a private tour of the store, and were able to use the great information shared during those sessions throughout the year. We also created custom videos for each blogger during the Plano trip to share with her readers why she was excited to be working with JCPenney:

• Jill Nystul, One Good Thing by Jillee
• Jamie Reimer, hands on as we grow
• Rebecca Lindamood, Foodie with Family
• Natalia Simmons, Ma Nouvelle Mode
• Meseidy Rivera, The Noshery

Chevrolet Traverse –  Ten bloggers were selected to drive a Chevrolet Traverse for a week, documenting their experience using dashboard-mounted video cameras. We then edited their videos into short documentary videos to accompany their sponsored blog posts. Start with their posts and videos looking forward to the experience before you dig into the reviews.  An additional group of bloggers wrote aligned posts about family travel memories to support the theme of family togetherness and provide context for Traverse messaging.

Why I love this program: Bloggers in cars! Dashboard cams! But none of the shaky-cam that often makes experiential video painful to watch. Our professional editors provided upfront guidance to the bloggers, and then edited the raw footage into tight stories to accompany the bloggers’ posts.  This “premium UGC” approach delivers a production quality that lets the story shine through and brings all the videos together into a cohesive series. I also love the juxtaposition of the experiential program with the more reflective aligned posts, allowing us to reach the audience through two very distinct types of content.

The post 2014 in Review: Some of my favorite sponsored content programs (part 1) first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Related articles

• FTC Focuses on Fine Print in ‘Operation Full Disclosure’
• FTC Endorsement Guidelines Update: Disclosing a Sweeps or Contest Entry on Social Media
• FTC .Com Disclosures Guidance: What’s new for bloggers and social media influencers
• Travel blogs, ethics and the FTC endorsement guidelines

The post FTC Update: Operation Full Disclosure; Disclosing a compensated trip first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Disclosure: I am Vice President, Sales Marketing at BlogHer. Advertising and social media marketing programs are a significant source of revenue for my company and for the bloggers in our advertising network.

• What are we asking the blogger to do?
  • Simple post? Cover an event? Develop a recipe? Create a Craft or DIY How-To? Produce a UGC video? Participate in a custom video program? Is travel involved?
• Does the blogger have special or unique expertise?
• How many hours will this take? At a reasonable hourly rate?

Then we factor in reach, both monthly blog pageviews and overall social reach on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Instagram. If you’ve ever wondered why some bloggers get paid more than others for similar work (whether from BlogHer or another network or social media/pr agency), your answer starts with reach. Absent other data (and more about that in a moment), potential reach is the most common proxy for influence.

Influencers with more scale can get higher fees. Usually. But sometimes the program just doesn’t have the budget. We don’t mind if bloggers ask for more if a program appeals to them but the fee seems low. Just as long as they aren’t offended if the answer is no.

But task and potential reach are not end game. They are a good start, but end game is results. The more a blogger is able to link back to actual results achieved for brands, the better fees she can command for future work.

Bottom line: Size matters. Influence matters more. Results matter most. 

We’ve been doing sponsor programs since 2008, and have accumulated quite a bit of data on typical results. We use this data to predict program performance when calculating our guaranteed results for sponsored programs. Key measurements include number of post page views, both absolute and as a percentage of monthly traffic, total comments, earned social shares/pins, and clicks to sponsor site.

Starting later this summer, we will be sharing this proprietary data with the bloggers in our sponsored programs. Via their private BlogHer profiles,  they will be able to see how their own posts are performing and better understand how their posts and social sharing contribute to a program’s success. We will also share historical benchmark data so they can measure their performance. Eventually, and we will give our bloggers plenty of notice, we will be using this results data in our fee calculations. Task and reach will always matter, but historical results will be a factor. This should be particularly welcome news to mid-size bloggers with loyal audiences that read and engage with multiple posts every month; these “magic middle” blogs should compare quite favorably to much larger blogs that get a big chunk of their traffic from one-time search engine visitors.

Exciting times. And more to come.

The post Blogger Compensation: How Much is a Sponsored Post Worth? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Content marketing. It is the hot topic of 2014. And like “native advertising,” there are as many definitions of and opinions about it as there are marketing pundits on the interwebs.

Far be it from me to back away from a challenge.

Linguistically, content marketing simply is using “content” to market products and services. But what exactly is this thing called “content.” Channeling Inigo Montoya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inigo_Montoya), it is entirely possible that this word does not mean exactly what we think.

Let’s stay simple to start. Brands are using “content” as distinct from “advertising” to promote their products. This can take many forms:

• sponsored posts — on blogs and mass media sites (advertorial)
• sponsored editorial
• in native ad units
• editorial on brand sites

Sponsored posts often integrate the brand into a story, not dissimilar from old style advertorial, but quite a lot of this content is just, well, content brought to you by a sponsor, either intermediated by a publisher, like Forbes BrandVoice or Mashable or direct, like Coca-Cola’s new content site, Coca-Cola Journey.

Example of integration of sponsored editorial: Is Your Cash Working for You?, sponsored by American Express

On some level, this is the fulfillment of the promise of the World Wide Web — build a terrific website and your customers will come to you, with the twist that we finally get that reading about the products isn’t the attraction. It’s useful and when you are ready to buy, critical, but product websites are selling tools, not marketing tools. They matter once you are in the consideration phase.

What attracts the consumer is storytelling.

And now brands are joining their customers as the publishers of content. If 2004 was the beginning of the rise of the citizen journalist, 2014 may be the birth of the brand journalist. This has implications for the quality of the news we consume, and already has had an impact on mainstream media. Advertorial content is increasingly front and center on mainstream media sites, with varying degrees of disclosure. More on that another day.

The long term impact of this shift on the independent,  read objective, journalist remains to be seen but the shift to brands as the direct funder of our news feed is already exerting a tremendous pressure on prices.

The quality of online content is also at some risk… The costs of feeding a machine that relies on new stories every day is why newspapers began selling advertising in the first place. Unlike an advert,  which is “create once, play many,” and works because of its simple, entertaining, purchase-oriented message, content marketing requires new stuff every day. The temptation is strong to sacrifice quality for volume.

But simply shoving a lot of words into a funnel isn’t going to have the long term effect we want. We need deeply engaging content that will connect consumers with our value proposition in a meaningful way and encourage them to consider our product or service. Bottom line, much as I love the quizzes, and top 10 lists, their impact is fleeting when it comes to long term engagement.

Collectively, we –marketers, consumers and publishers — need to take a step back and commit to creating and supporting GOOD content.

What’s good content in this context? It’s well-written content that engages the audience with a story, and connects with the brand message in some fashion. It can be tightly integrated like a review, loosely integrated like many sponsored posts or simply aligned editorial brought to you by the brand, with a brand message at the end of the post or article.

While brand marketers can, and should, produce material to feed the content marketing machine, the best stories will come from the community. No matter how well we write, we shouldn’t try to copy community-created content. It is extremely difficult to excise our passion for our brand from the story, and, as has been proven time and again, with good stories and bad, there is nothing more powerful than an engaged consumer.

Use your marketing passion to create the brand material for your content funnel that consumers rely on for more information about a product – micro sites, Facebook pages, Pinterest “catalogs,” and help your customers channel their passion into storytelling. Find and nurture your evangelists. Let them create the content and stories that matter with your support, either directly sponsored by you, or syndicated for re-use. A story may not be new to you, but it will be new to someone.

Personally, I’m excited about the potential for content marketing, and true partnerships between companies and their customers, brands and bloggers, to tell the stories that connect us with each other and with the brands we love. It’s what I’ve been hoping this interweb would morph into since I started writing about the space in 2004.

Here are some oldies but goodies from my archives on the topic of the brand-blogger connection:

• https://getgood.com/roadmaps/2008/08/13/the-secret-sauce-for-the-perfect-pitch/
• https://getgood.com/roadmaps/2009/01/11/the-importance-of-value-and-values-in-social-media/
• https://getgood.com/roadmaps/2009/03/18/blogger-outreach-shared-values-and-cotton-swabs/
• https://getgood.com/roadmaps/2009/02/23/engaging-with-your-community-your-customer/

The post A practical definition of content marketing first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

 Disclosure: Not a lawyer. Don’t play one on the Internet. But I’ve studied the FTC endorsement guidelines. A lot. 

Yesterday news broke that the FTC had issued a warning to shoe manufacturer Cole Haan, notifying it that the disclosures used by consumers in its Wandering Sole contest on Pinterest were not sufficiently clear as to the potential material connection between contest entrants and the company. Said the letter (as quoted in MediaPost):

“We do not believe that the “#WanderingSole” hashtag adequately communicated the financial incentive — a material connection — between contestants and Cole Haan,” Mary Engle, FTC associate director for advertising practices, said in a letter sent to the retailer’s attorneys on March 20.

This represents an evolution in the FTC’s thinking with regard to disclosure of a sweepstakes or contest entry. In the early days, it did not explicitly require such a disclosure when a blogger mentioned a brand in a post to enter a sweeps or contest.  In part, because there was no material relationship between the parties, so there was nothing to disclose. And, for the most part, back then (2010!), in text-based formats like blogs and Twitter, sweeps and contest entries were often disclosed as part of the entry instructions. Hence no confusion.  [Facebook only allowed contest entries on pages recently.]

So what has changed? The endorsement guidelines are grounded in two basic concepts:

• is there a material (compensated) relationship between the parties, and
• is there a possibility of consumer confusion about the relationship?

In my opinion, the FTC’s thinking has evolved due to the prevalence of contest and sweepstakes entries, particularly on the highly visual Pinterest, that mimic organic endorsements, and do not have clear disclosure that they are a contest or sweepstakes entry. In other words, that the posting is motivated by a commercial incentive, not an organic interest in the product. Quite simply, all these sweeps and contests were causing too much consumer confusion.

The resolution is pretty simple, and follows the same simple guidelines that normal disclosure does. When possible, use natural language to disclose the relationship (Pinned for the Blah Blah Sweepstakes) and use clear hashtags (#sweepsentry) or @ addressing (@BlahSweepsEntry) to make it crystal clear. Using the hashtag or @ addressing is useful even if you also require a natural language disclosure as it makes it easier to track the entries. IMPORTANT: Make the proper disclosure part of the requirements to enter the sweeps or contest.

Related articles

• • • • FTC: Brand-Incentivized Pins On Pinterest Potentially “Deceptive,” Require Disclosure
      • Update: Pinterest’s Acceptable Use Policy and Brand Pins/Pinboards
• Why A Marketing Promotion Hashtag Is Not Appropriate FTC Disclosure by Sara Hawkins

The post FTC Endorsement Guidelines Update: Disclosing a Sweeps or Contest Entry on Social Media first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

It’s not a secret that I am something of an ethics/best practices aficionado. As a result, I pay particular attention to the terms of service and acceptable use policies of the social platforms commonly used in sponsored programs. The good news is: I love it so you don’t have to

Recently (1/31/2014),  Pinterest changed its Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) to explicitly prohibit both compensated pins and ads that could be confused with Pinterest content.

Specifically prohibited per the AUP :

“Create or show ads that look like or could be confused with Pinterest content (for example, embedding Pinterest actions like Pin, follow or unfollow in your ads)
Directly compensate users for Pinning, following or unfollowing” 

However:

“a business can pay someone to help them put together a board that represents their brand. For example, it’s okay for a guest blogger to curate a board for a local boutique’s profile. We don’t allow that boutique to pay the blogger to Pin products to her own boards.”

How does this  impact brands that want to use Pinterest in their promotional efforts? Here’s my take.

Not Allowed:

Brands CANNOT compensate influencers to pin brand content on their own Pinterest boards. This includes asking them to curate from a pre-defined pool of content or Pinterest boards.

Allowed:

Influencers can create boards for brands on the brand Pinterest. Because the brand’s Pinterest is understood to be commercial, the board can include branded pins, and no further FTC disclosure is necessary.

Brands can license previously published blog content  to populate the brand Pinterest boards. These licensed pins can include branding. 

Finally,  influencers can create sponsored boards on their own Pinterest account using a theme that aligns with the brand messaging but does not specify content sources or include any paid branded pins. The board sponsorship would require disclosure per FTC requirements, as it is a compensated activity, but one that is more akin to an editorial sponsorship than sponsored advertorial.

Pinterest does not include an example of this type of board in the AUP update but I am confident that this is well within the policy. Here’s an example, built around the theme of beautiful things:

That said, Pinterest can always change its mind about this, or any other policy in its Terms of Service or AUP, so it is wise to check the company’s blog for updates before finalizing any program.

In particular, if you want to do a contest or sweeps using Pinterest, something I generally do not recommend, the service regularly refines its policy on sweeps and contests. The current policy is much in line with the new position on compensated pinning. It states: “please don’t:

Suggest that Pinterest sponsors or endorses you or the promotion
Require people to Pin from a selection
Make people Pin your contest rules
Run a sweepstakes where each Pin, board, like or follow represents an entry
Encourage spammy behavior, such as asking participants to comment
Ask Pinners to vote with Pins, boards or likes
Require a minimum number of Pins”

 What do these changes mean for brands over the long term?  

Pinterest is still feeling its way around commercial use of the platform, and is simultaneously trying to maintain the authenticity of the experience that caused such dynamic growth while evaluating and building its own monetization models. Right now, it is being very restrictive on commercial use of the core functionality of the platform, much as Facebook did a few years ago.

Facebook has since loosened some (but not all) the restrictions it placed, particularly with regard to Pages (versus personal Profiles). I expect Pinterest will do the same: reserve some capabilities to itself while lightly loosening the restrictions in areas where it is not building its own solutions.

More to come, I am sure!

The post Update: Pinterest’s Acceptable Use Policy and Brand Pins/Pinboards first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

In December, the FTC held a workshop on Native Advertising,  the practice of embedding/including advertising messages in editorial spaces. Prompted by concerns that publishers are not disclosing sufficient information to consumers, the workshop was mostly focused on native advertising on publishers’ sites and portals. Although there are some implications for sponsored content on independent blogs, there was nothing in this workshop that replaced or changes the endorsement guidelines updated in 2009.

The FTC regularly holds public workshops to discuss and document the points of view on a topic for which they might issue a regulation.  Nothing really new comes to light, but the workshops are a good way to understand the current market thinking on a topic. How it works in a nutshell:

• Participants file a public comment on the matter with the FTC in order to be “invited” to the workshop (and not all are given speaking slots).
• During the workshop, the participants clarify and defend these previously established positions.
• Often participating organizations time related press announcement to the workshop date to maximize the reach of their point of view. For example, the IAB released its Native Advertising Playbook on December 4th, the day of the workshop.
• Following the workshop, the FTC may (or may not) eventually issue regulatory guidelines.

If you aren’t on the hot seat, FTC Workshops are excellent policy wonk theater. From the coverage, this one did not disappoint. Seen on Twitter, largely paraphrasing commentary by columnist Bob Garfield:

raju: “We are all trying to make money” Yes, but with a “boatload of shit.” Arguments fly in US @FTC hearing on #NativeAds bitly.com/1bid3ie

sulliview: “A conspiracy of deception. A hustle. A racket. A grift.” And other kind words for native advertising:adage.com/article/media/… h/t @raju

If you were looking for a conclusion or a ruling, though, you would definitely be disappointed at the outcome (to-date) of the workshop. As is often the case, FTC workshops end with everyone realizing just how a) far apart the various protagonists/antagonists are on the issues and b) how confusing the topic is, both organically and as manufactured by the protagonists and antagonists.

Among other issues, the different players in the online media industry are using the term “native advertising” to mean  multiple, often disparate things. Many of which already existed in somewhat similar form, online and off.  At best, this makes conclusions about concrete action difficult for the regulators.  At worst, it makes it obvious that sometimes the lack of clarity is deliberately intended to confuse consumers about the paid nature of the content and implied endorsement. Online and offline, sometimes it is just hard tell where the editorial ends and the advertising begins. Blurred lines (the name of the FTC workshop) indeed, and certainly why the FTC intends to keep a sharp eye on native advertising in the coming year.

I’m watching the ongoing debate with some interest. In part because HULLO ethics policy wonk here! but also because these discussions about native advertising impact my work with brands and influencers at BlogHer. We’ve been doing sponsored content for years, both on BlogHer.com and on the blogs of our Advertising Network members, and have long been a proponent of clear and prominent  disclosure of sponsored relationships, even before the revised FTC endorsement guidelines.

Sponsored posts are considered a form of native advertising. I’d argue that sponsored posts are the original native advertising, and many of the newer portal- and publisher- based forms are attempts to mimic the word-of-mouth potential of an authentic influencer endorsement. Other native ads are advertorials that blur the lines between the native editorial of a publisher — the magazine content — and advertising. For example, did the sponsor simply fund the space, and the article was written with the usual editorial objectivity of the publisher, or did the advertiser place the article fully written? Both types of post have their place in the content ecology, but sponsorship and in the case of my example, the level and degree of sponsorship, must be disclosed so consumers can make an informed decision.

On one side of this debate, we have the advertising and publishing industry that wants to expand the opportunities to reach consumers with marketing messages. And on the other, we have the watchdogs who are concerned that consumers aren’t getting adequate information upon which to base their decisions.

No one denies the need for disclosure. The sticking point seems to be what is an acceptable, meaningful disclosure.

We are arguing about the wrong thing. We are having a debate when we should be having a conversation. And not about the best way to disclose. Shaded boxes versus color cues, or whether we call something an ad, advertorial or sponsored, trap us in the minutiae of old media models.

One of the most interesting topics discussed during the workshop was a study conducted by the McCarthy Institute for IP and Technology Law. Among other things the study found that 50% of respondents did not know what sponsored advertising meant.  The study also suggested that consumers don’t care that much. Reported website emedia|vitals:

One question looms even larger than how publishers label the native ads that run on their site: Do consumers care? One-third of respondents in the McCarthy Institute study said they are not concerned about the difference between ads and editorial and that they would actually be more likely to click on something they think is an ad.

“So the important baseline question is, what are we protecting the consumer from?” asked Franklyn [McCarthy Institute Director David Franklyn]. “A growing number of consumers enjoy the hyperstimulation of the work that advertisers and publishers do. They don’t care whether it’s paid or unpaid – they may just want to be entertained.”

Should consumers care? Does it matter?  It seems that consumers aren’t nearly as fussed about whether a message is paid or unpaid as long as they can trust its credibility and the message is relevant and interesting.  This shouldn’t surprise us — it is the foundation upon which social media, and social media marketing, is built. That said, it is extremely important to note that while the consumer may not care whether an endorsement is paid or not, it is still vital that she know whether it was paid or not. Without disclosure, there is no foundation for the trust upon which social media engagement relies.

Trust and Relevance. 

Rather than get bogged down making advertising look like editorial because we think it increases its trust value if it looks “native,” let’s take a deep breath and realize that the consumer doesn’t care whether it is paid, owned or earned. Shareability is the new social currency.

I have written about this before so I am no less guilty of using the FTC workshop as a soapbox than any of the participants.  But it bears repeating: Developing a story so good that consumers are driven to share is the real goal. It’s not an either/or — either you use paid media OR you use earned media OR you use owned media.The best marketing strategies rely on all three tactics.

Shared Media: Social’s New Currency
Source: BlogHer

And don’t shortchange disclosure in an attempt to make the message more appealing. It’s not necessary, and when you do so, you begin your relationship with your customer based on a lie. And really, that never works out well. In life or in business.

The post Shining a Light on the Native Advertising Debate first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Boys, use Old Spice, you’ll get laid, and your mom will turn into a crazy stalker who doesn’t brush her hair.

Old Spice has rung in the New Year with a new ad campaign for its teen-skewed products, and I hate it. And not just because I don’t think the joke is funny.

I understand the premise. The “joke” is based on the stereotype that no mother wants her son to grow up, therefore she is bereft when her teen son develops a social life. Like most stereotypes, it has its basis in reality. Not mine, mind you, but I can believe that some women do have separation issues.

But this campaign is creepy. Weird, stalker-y creepy. Oedipal and then some.

Will it get a lot of buzz? Sure. It is deliberately polarizing, which by the way, leads to no small amount of cognitive dissonance for those of us who don’t like the ads but feel compelled to write about them anyway.

But will it sell any product? An ad campaign that gets tons of attention (negative or positive) or wins awards for the creative agency, but doesn’t actually sell anything? Not a win.

If my Facebook feed is any indication, a few folks in my social graph like these ads. Men and women.  It’s just a joke, they say. Look at the crazy ladies… Yeah? Call me humorless if you like, but would we still think this is funny if we switched up the gender? If this were a product for teen girls, and a father displaying such extreme behavior? Doubt it. We’d wonder if he was abusing her.

But it’s a moot point, because a campaign like that would never get off the drawing board. The advertising industry isn’t averse to using the overprotective dad, but it draws the line at making the stereotype so broad, so unattractive. Overprotective dad is the relatively normal guy who still sees his toddler girl behind the wheel even though she is all grown up.

Or chases after the fast food-eating kid who was “hanging out” with his daughter.

Mostly normal. Not a raging lunatic following the kid around like a creepy stalker.

Which is why even if this campaign did send teen boys into the store in droves in search of the magic spray that will get them a…  GIRL, I would still call it a fail. Because it’s lazy and dangerous. It’s so easy to fall back on a prevailing stereotype of women in advertising — madonna, whore, harridan or shrew. Ha ha ha. Isn’t it funny?

Except it’s not funny. It’s dangerous.

Because when we support this “funny” stereotype — overprotective moms are shrewish monsters and overprotective dads are touchingly cute, we perpetuate more harmful ones. You know. Men are assertive. Women are aggressive. Men are persuasive. Women are pushy. And so on.

But in the end, I don’t think this campaign will drive sales the way it has drawn online buzz. The old adage, oft attributed to PT Barnum, that it doesn’t matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name right only goes so far. Sometimes the accumulated negative buzz really does damage your brand.

For my part, I say bring back the man on the horse!

For more on the “Mom Song” campaign, check out Hello Oedipus Old Spice Made Some Ads For You by Deb Rox.

The post Old Spice: Bring back the man on the horse! first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

We want to aim for the middle ground – to be in the right place for our audience with the right message at the right time.

Let’s break it down.

Right platform? Consider the social platform in the context of your marketing objectives.  Is the platform conducive to your marketing need?

• Blogs: The deep content on blogs drives readers through to consideration and often purchase. More than 85% of the BlogHer audience has purchased a product based on a recommendation from a blog (BlogHer Social Media Matters 2012).
• Pinterest: Its curated content with aspirational and inspirational appeal acts as  long term consideration sets for consumers.
• Facebook: Personal connections pique interest and foster consideration.
• Twitter: Broad amplification drives awareness

The Social Purchasing Funnel
Image Source: BlogHer marketing materials

Right time? Is your audience actively using the social platform? If your customers aren’t actively using a social platform, it doesn’t matter that it is the hot new thing. It is not the hot new thing for your brand. Continue to monitor, but move on, at least for now, for your overall marketing strategy. If you sense potential for the platform, be vigilant for an inflection point – that moment when enough of your audience is actively using the platform for it to be potentially useful in your marketing strategy. Maybe even test it with small pilot projects, but don’t expect any ROI from these pilots other than knowledge about the platform and your customer base. You are asking for failure if you expect your pilot project to deliver significant sales results.

Right message? Is your audience receptive to hearing about or engaging with your brand on this social channel? That they might not want to talk about your product doesn’t mean they might not engage with your company on related topics, but be honest about what you are bringing to the online conversation. Some advice I wrote in 2008 about the secret sauce for a perfect blog pitch might prove useful in this exercise.

You should spend at least as much time thinking about WHAT you want them to say/do, HOW you want them to react and engage with your brand, as you do slicing and dicing the demographics. More really, but I’ll settle for equal time to start. The social platform may be perfect and your audience ready and willing to engage with you, but if your message is forced and inauthentic, it will at best fall flat. At worst, you’ll understand the dark side of “viral” which is far closer to the real world meaning of the word than the sentiment behind the oft-repeated mantra of the social era: <clueless enthusiasm> let’s hope our story goes viral !</clueless enthusiasm>

Spend the time to sanity check your message and your ask, against the audience and the platform, and once you get started, monitor the community reaction closely and adjust as necessary. Spelling your name right is not a good substitute for positive brand awareness and corporate goodwill.

The post Matching the social platform to the marketing objective first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Clearly the developer of the platform (and its shareholders) own the business and its intellectual property. Deciding who owns the experience is a wee bit harder. Without the engaged users, there is no experience. In that respect the users are just as invested in the platform as its nominal owners.

This tension can sometimes get ugly. Nearly every time Facebook changes its terms of service, interface or algorithms, the users get restless, threaten revolt etc.

But what happens when a change in and enforcement of the terms of service impacts the business of its users. As when Facebook restricted sweepstakes and contests a few years ago. Restrictions it has since loosened. Or when Pinterest began applying daily pin limits to minimize spam and revising and enforcing its guidelines for contests and sweepstakes that involve Pinterest.

On some level, the platforms rely on creative users to experiment with business models to surface interesting ways of leveraging the platform. Is it then fair when the platform asserts its marks (pin, pinning), chooses to limit an activity (number of pins per day) or restricts something to itself alone as Facebook did with “advertising.” Perhaps not, but no one ever promised fair.

When you build your business on the back of someone else’s platform, you run the risk — always — of the platform making changes that impact your business. For example, when Pinterest asserted its claim to the concept of digital pins and pinning and signaled intent to enforce, a number of companies building third party Pinterest tools that used Pin in the name rebranded. Pingage became Ahalogy. Pinerly morphed into Reachli.

And last month, blogger Amy Lupold Blair was requested to not enforce a trademark she had registered for “Pinning Party” and to comply with Pinterest’s terms of service guidelines for sweepstakes and contests.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, and my purpose for sharing this example isn’t to overanalyze it or decide who is “right.”

Because it doesn’t matter. Pinterest has a terms of service, and reserves the right to change its TOS at any time. If you want to use the service, you have to play by its rules.

The company also has to be consistent in its enforcement of its TOS and defense of the claim to the concept of the digital pin. That means pinning only happens on Pinterest and no other business entity can own pin/pinning in a digital context. It may seem draconian when applied to a loyal user like Amy, but if Pinterest doesn’t assert its claims consistently, it sets dangerous precedent for when it tries to assert against the inevitable copycat platforms.

I’m far more interested in exploring how we can use social platforms in our marketing and business offerings without getting tripped up by the inevitable tension of who owns what. Here are a few thoughts. Your Mileage May Vary.

1. Build your offering on something you can own independent of a platform. It can certainly leverage a platform but for maximum flexibility, the underlying concept should be portable. This is why content-based plays are so powerful. The “product” is the story. The platform is simply the conduit.
2. If you have a great idea for technology play on top of/relying on a single platform, be honest with yourself. Are you a bleeding edge first mover? Or is your idea a breakthrough for the platform? Then it’s possibly worth trying to position you/your idea/your company as an acquisition candidate quickly. Whether the platform wants to leverage your technology, get you out of the way or both, this is a strike-fast play.
3. An independent technology concept that might plug into multiple platforms is also a decent bet, but again first mover or breakthrough has an edge, and shopping yourself may take longer than you have funds. Your idea needs to have legs on its own. Does it really fill an unmet market need?
4. Pick a name for your product/service/company that you can own. You can’t own another’s trade or service marks, so don’t use ’em. Very few companies will be as lenient as Twitter when it comes to use of their name in your name. As we’ve learned with Pinterest, that a term is a generic like “pin” isn’t enough to rely on if the company can prove that use of the generic term in the specific context is something it created beyond the generic meaning.

And you know that just because a domain name is available, that doesn’t mean the name is, right?

For most bloggers, the content-based play is the simpler choice. It allows you to build on your strengths as a storyteller without being married to a platform. Your power is in your story, and in who cares to read it/engage with it/converse about it. Not in how you share it.

Bottom line: don’t build your empire — however large or small –on someone else. Build it on YOU.

Related articles

• How Pinteresting (360degreesofadvertising.wordpress.com)
• Nordstrom Will Use Pinterest To Decide What Merchandise To Display In Stores (JWN) (businessinsider.com)

The post Who “owns” social platforms? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Brands can now use their Facebook Pages directly for sweeps and contest entries, including core Facebook functionality like posting to the brand’s page, commenting or liking a post.

However, it is still a violation of the Terms of Service to require users to take actions on their own personal Timelines as entries.

Quite simply, Brand X can ask users like a post on its Brand X Page as an entry but it cannot ask users to share the post on their own personal Timelines as an entry.

Facebook also updated its TOS for Pages to make it explicitly prohibited to tag people in content they are not depicted in, or to encourage people to tag themselves as a sweepstakes entry. This seems a little weird and random but the folks over at Hubspot got this explanation from Facebook:

“It’s OK to ask people to submit names of a new product in exchange for a chance to win a prize. It’s not OK to ask people to tag themselves in pictures of a new product in exchange for a chance to win a prize.” – Source Hubspot

Important:  I interpret this restriction to apply to brands and Pages, the use of this tagging in promotional content,  and most specifically contest and sweeps entries. I do not believe this specifically applies to the common practice of tagging non-present people in photos on your personal Timeline. For example, tagging a picture of your niece with your sister’s name so other friends have a clue whose child this is. However, I am NOT a lawyer. Personally, I advise doing it sparingly and generally limited to the example I gave. That’s a nice privacy protection for the kids, and common sense would indicate Facebook would allow this. I am far less fond of tagging people in images merely to make them aware of the photo.

Why did they make the changes?
Facebook says it is to offer more flexible solutions to marketers. I don’t doubt it. Brands were using other platforms (Twitter, Instagram in particular) for their quick turnaround promotions.

Given the sheer volume of non-compliant stuff I continued to see on Facebook under the old rules  — usually but not always from smaller companies, I imagine the cost of enforcement also was well beyond the benefit. Rather than apply the rules inconsistently or try to stem the tide, Facebook decided to go with the flow.

Now it just has to go after promotions that violate the prohibition on using the personal Timeline. Bound to be a smaller task.

What does this mean for Brands?

Brands now have more options for contests and sweeps, particularly to execute things quickly when necessary. Facebook apps are still better for brand awareness and customer acquisition, as you can design a more engaging experience and capture email addresses for future promotions. They are also more expensive and take time to develop.

Activating a promotion on your brand Page is quick and easy, but you are also limited to the functionality of Facebook.

For Bloggers?

If you have a Facebook Page for your blog, you can now do promotions on Facebook, but read the Promotion Guidelines carefully. Facebook has other requirements for contests and sweeps, and you should always make sure that any promotion you administer complies with the law.

Related articles

• Facebook eases up on brand Page promotions by removing third-party app requirement (thenextweb.com)
• Facebook Announces a More Brand-Friendly Promotions Policy (360i.com)
• The Death of Facebook Promotional Apps? (janwong.my)
• Marketing Roadmaps previous posts about Facebook

The post Changes to Facebook rules for contests and sweeps first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Disclosure: I am Vice President, Influencer Marketing at BlogHer. While I work on digital and social marketing programs with many of the brands that sponsor our conference, I am not directly involved in the event side of our business and experience the Expo Floor much as any other attendee would. Except I can’t enter any of the sweepstakes In my past life, however, I was in charge of event and channel marketing for multiple employers.

Other writers have already done an excellent job of sharing the attendee perspective on the brands at BlogHer and their promotional offerings.

I want to focus on the brand side of the equation. Whether you call it swag (PG version: stuff we all get), schwag (an alternative spelling) or trinkets and trash (a personal favorite), companies make the investment because it helps them achieve their marketing goals. Ultimately, the marketer wants the target consumer to buy her product, and she uses a variety of strategies and tactics to bring potential customers through the purchasing funnel of Awareness to Interest to Consideration to Purchase.

And marketers have been doing it for a VERY long time. For example this Coca-Cola coupon found on  Wikipedia.

There are two kinds of swag — promotional items of varying utility (and price points) imprinted with the company name or other branding, and actual product, often but not always in sample sizes.

A defining characeristic of swag is that it is broadly distributed — at a conference, an event, as a product premium, on box, at the cash register etc etc. The intent is to reach large numbers of consumers. It is not deliberate seeding of product with known influencers, although with social media, the two tend to conflate, and there is more of an expectation that consumers are also influencers.

So, back to our two kinds of swag – promotional items (trinkets and trash) and actual product. CPG brands (food, cosmetics, household products) can more easily give away samples of their products than consumer durables like electronics, furnishings, and automobiles, but even they often offer promotional items, either instead of or in addition to product sampllng or coupons.

Promotional items

Why give away promotional items? In a word, awareness.

The more useful the trinket, the better the chance that awareness will lead to consideration. When I was an independent consultant, I gave away lens cleaning cloths in a little plastic case. People held onto them for years. At BlogHer 2008, I picked up a 3-outlet extender from Topix that I still use.

Utility doesn’t have to be longterm. Bottled water, personal fans and sunglasses may not make it home from the outdoor concert, but you can bet they will be well used during. It also doesn’t necessarily mean used by the consumer herself. Many trade show trinkets end up in the “look what I got you on my trip” bag that parents bring home to their kids, and that was just as true at the computer industry events I attended in my previous life as it is for blogging conferences. At BlogHer this year, I picked up pair of green sunglasses at the Turning Leaf booth, and my son wore them throughout BlogHer and our post-BlogHer vacation in Chicago.

In addition to utility, another factor to consider when selecting promo items is alignment with brand messaging. Fitness items align with wellness messaging, makeup accessories with cosmetics brands, cooking tools with food brands, and so on. Years ago, I worked for a company that made software for tire dealers, and we gave away tire gauges.

Finally, cost. Promotional items do not have to be cheap trinkets and trash. Luxury brands use promo items too, but their distribution is usually more limited than what we are discussing here, the use of promo items in a mass consumer marketing strategy. Generally, the cost of a promo item for mass distribution should be commensurate with the cost of the actual products as well as your overall trade show budget. Bottom line, don’t spend a lot but don’t default to the cheapest item in the catalog either.

Product samples

Product samples make their appearance at events in all sorts of guises — from sampling on site (usually supported by generous coupons and/or a promo item) to free product in trial or full sizes. Regardless of size or form, their role is to encourage trial. in other words, to jump the consumer right to the consideration stage. At BlogHer and other social media events that attract influencers, the brands want to connect with the consumer on two levels, as both a customer and an influencer of other customers (hopefully with some scale!)

Food and many beauty products lend themselves very well to onsite sampling, while others (shampoo, body wash, household cleaning as examples) work better as trial or full size “take-home” products.

The key is to integrate the promo item or sample into your marketing strategy, with a clear objective and desired result. In other words, don’t just give stuff out because everyone else is. Understanding the ROI of your swag can turn it from a cost item in your event budget to an investment in your brand.

All the exhibitors at BlogHer this year did a good job with their booths and swag. I didn’t really see anything that didn’t work for its intended consumer — and keep in mind that not every attendee at BlogHer was the consumer for every brand. That’s why there’s a Swag Swap set up for people to drop off the stuff they don’t want. Whatever is left at the end is donated to local charities.

That said, I do want to call out a few that are great examples of my points above.

Starting with two very small items in the official conference swag bag. Verizon had a USB car charger plug that scores on all my promo item criteria – useful and reinforces Verizon’s branding as a mobile solution provider at a reasonable price point. Immune supplement manufacturer AloMune distributed samples of its product in a very useful cell phone sized waterproof pouch. Neither item was terribly expensive, but almost every attendee probably could find a use for them. Or knows someone who could. And bonus: small and packable so likely to make it home, even with attendees who were not checking luggage or shipping stuff home.

CVS was a sponsor at BlogHer and another conference I attended earlier this summer, Reviewer’s Retreat. At both events, it took the surprising, generous (and not cheap) approach of handing out swag bags of full size products. Not just one or two items — I didn’t count, but it was about what might fit in the hand basket you’d grab when you’d run into the store for a few things. At both conferences, it also was a wide variety — cosmetics, bandages, a first aid kit, cookies and other snack items, hand creme, sunblock and so on. Some of the items were CVS-brand, others were well-known (and not inexpensive) brands like Lubriderm, Roc and Aveeno.

Now, I don’t have first-hand visibility into the brand’s marketing strategy, but I’m guessing one objective is to increase the average basket size (purchase), and that is the goal supported by the generous swag bag. It’s a bold and noticeable move to reinforce the brand messaging — that CVS carries a wide range of merchandise, including food and snack items, at a variety of price points. It isn’t limited to prescriptions, toothpaste and OTC medicines.

I also really hope that the number of items isn’t a coincidence — that someone really did think about how many (as well as what) to include, to mimic that basket size.

Using my focus group of one, I’d say it works. A few days before we left for BlogHer, I had to pick up a prescription ($20) and while I was there, I picked up make-up remover wipes, vitamins, shampoo for my son and a bunch of other stuff, about $50 worth. I know I considered and purchased some of the CVS-brand items as a direct result of the Reviewer’s Retreat swag bag.

So, next time you hear someone bemoaning the swag and promotional items at conferences and events, remind them that swag is an important element in the event marketing mix, brands rely on it to achieve their marketing objectives and consumers welcome it.

And if you don’t want it, just don’t take it. It’s that easy.

Related articles

• BlogHer13: The Swag (allthingsfadra.com)
• What Someone Who Didn’t go to BlogHer13 Learned from BlogHer13 (fromhiptohousewife.com)
• The Best Swag From BlogHer ’13 (amommystory.com)

The post The one about the swag first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

These, my friends, are the buzzwords du jour. And there seem to be as many definitions OF them as there are letters IN them. Every publisher, every social network defines them in the context of their offer, their platform — what they are able to deliver to the advertiser.

Which is of relatively little use to the brand marketer trying to compare these disparate offerings and make decisions among them. In order to do that, you have to strip away the bells and whistles of the digital platforms and properties to get to a simple common definition of WHAT these things are. In other words, get to the apples to apples of things first, and then look at the embellishments offered by each platform/publisher.

To help us out, here are my simple definitions.

Content Marketing

Content marketing isn’t exactly new. In fact, it’s as old as the first testimonial, and I’m sure if we looked hard enough we could find that in the Bible. Not to start a religious war or anything but some might say that the Bible itself was an early form of content marketing. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Turn of the (20th) century woman’s literature.

Content marketing is storytelling used to persuade. Prior to the modern age, it was more often and obviously used for ideas, but first person testimony has been used for products since the very first marketplaces.

The digital form offers some twists that we don’t find in Paine, Genesis or turn-of-the century pamphlets for this or that medicine.

In digital, content marketing is far more overtly used for products. Sponsored content on blogs, consumer resource sites sponsored by brands, brand sponsored Pinterest boards and Facebook Pages. Even content driven advertising. Format doesn’t matter – editorial, testimonial, advertorial, advertising –as much as the simple notion that there is intrinsic value in the content. In other words, I don’t have to buy the product to get some value.

The value in the content independent of its role as a branded or brand sponsored message is what drives sharing. In the digital sphere, we can track and measure that sharing, and use that information to tweak our tale, adjust our strategy. A real-time option definitely not available to Mr. Paine. It took him years and an occasional stint in Parisian prisons to get his feedback.

Native Advertising

It’s no secret that I find this term unnecessary. It’s a buzzword in search of a unique meaning.

In some circles, it means an advertising message (of any length) delivered in the “native” format of the platform. This can be anything from a Facebook post or a tweet, to a brand logo perched on a blog post a la BuzzFeed. Even a brand-written advertorial “guest posted” in a blogger’s editorial space. The term can also be expanded to include all forms of sponsored content, even that which is not 100% controlled by the brand.

My question has always been – why do we even need the term? We have perfectly good terms — advertising, editorial, advertorial, content and sponsored content. Advertising is a message developed and controlled by a brand. Editorial is a message developed and controlled by the author or publisher. Advertorial is a blend of the two, and strictly speaking only should be applied to editorial-like content developed and controlled by the advertiser, although you will find it applied to independently written sponsored posts.

Collectively, digitally, all of these things can be considered content. Yes, even advertising. And when a brand sponsors and informs it, we call it sponsored content. So why exactly do we need the term native advertising?

I suppose underlying the rise of and desire for the term is the idea that native somehow makes it better. The thought process must be something like this: “Native. That’s like organic, right? So it MUST be better.”

Poppycock.

There’s nothing wrong with advertising. It serves its purpose in the marketing mix, as do all the other tools in the toolbox.

Engagement.

Simple right? Engagement is the measure of consumer interaction with the brand message. It’s an action – reading a blog post, retweeting or sharing a Facebook post, pinning an image.

Engagement is not exposure.

Exposure to a message is important, additive and critical. Without exposure, there is no possibility of engagement, and we know that repeated exposures increase likelihood of eventual purchase. Understanding the potential exposures to our message is the crucial base for a concrete action based model for engagement.

With advertising, we buy impressions but evaluate the success of our programs on click-through. In social, we acquire exposures (paid or earned, it really doesn’t matter) and evaluate the success based on actual consumer engagement with the message – by reading content, clicking through to a site, entering a sweepstakes, pinning an image, retweeting and so on.

This is all moving toward models that are predictive of sales, or at minimum can be used to forecast with some degree of accuracy. We aren’t there yet, and even when we are, it will never be perfect. Things that involve people never are totally predictable, but the more we understand what works to move the needle — what is effective —  the more efficient we can be with our marketing spend.

One tactic that will help in this mission is to design engagements — actions — that move the consumer along the sales funnel. For example, instead of simply collecting an opt-in email address for more information on your micro-site, develop an interactive widget that helps the consumer understand which of your products might fit her best, or provides use scenarios that she can try on for size. Whenever possible, engage your customer actively, not passively.

And that’s it for today’s vocabulary lesson. What popular industry terms and jargon do you think could stand a little deconstruction? Leave your suggestions in the comments.

The post Defining content marketing, native advertising and engagement first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Thanks again to all the terrific attendees of Reviewer’s Retreat 2013 for being such an engaged and smart audience.

The post Reviewer’s Retreat 2013 Presentation: 10 Principles for Successful Professional Blogging first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The 10 Guiding Principles is a constantly evolving presentation, so even if you’ve checked it out before, you’ll find some new material.

Related articles

• Blogging While Brown Conference Hits New York City Friday (bet.com)
• Blogging While Brown Holds 6th Annual Conference in New York City (newsone.com)

The post Blogging While Brown: 10 Principles for Professional Blogging first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

And, now the conclusion of my multi-part “chapter” on using Pinterest as a promotional tool.

As you grow your influence within the Pinterest ecosystem, you may get offers for sponsored opportunities. I am not talking about “Pin It To Win It” sweepstakes. I covered why I don’t recommend them to influencers or brands in my previous post.

So what does make sense for influencers to engage with brands on Pinterest? I break it down into four basic opportunities:

1. Creating a board for a brand on its Pinterest account. You are essentially acting as a freelancer, curating pins to align with a brand message or theme. Some brands may wish to leverage your reputation as the content curator, and others may just want your expertise. You might be curating from deep archives of brand content to create a compelling re-pinworthy board or sourcing material from the Internet, always taking care to respect copyrights. With regard to FTC disclosure, it is a board on the brand account so it is assumed to be commercial activity. The brand will likely have a branding message it wants included on or in each pin.
2. If you are writing a sponsored post for a brand, including compelling and pinworthy images to encourage readers to pin.  These can be branded or unbranded. If you do sponsored posts, you are likely already asked to include compelling and pinworthy images to encourage readers to pin. And if you haven’t been, you will be, as it is becoming a standard ask. When your users pin images from your sponsored posts, they are not required to disclose, as they are not compensated for their action. If you pin images from your sponsored posts, you should include a disclosure statement on the pin.
3. Creating a board for a brand on YOUR Pinterest account. If you are approached to create a board for a brand on your account, carefully evaluate the ask. Will the resulting board be interesting to your followers?  Is the brand asking you to pin all branded content or is the assignment broader, curating a board aligned with the brand message but not necessarily brand content? Both of these scenarios can be effective but it depends on the brand. The board and all the sponsored pins must include a disclosure statement, such as “Sponsored by”  on the board description and #sponsored on the pins.
4. Pinning brand content to your boards, but not to a specific board. This is a very effective way to distribute brand content without fatiguing your Pinterest followers. It works best when the brand has a deep archive of branded content from which you can curate. A good rule of thumb: the pool of content you are curating from should be between 2 to 4 times larger than the total number of pins you have been asked to add to your Pinterest boards. In other words, if you are asked to curate 10 pins, an ideal pool should be between 20-40 pieces of content. All the pins must include a disclosure such as #sponsored. Including just the hashtag of the brand is NOT sufficient.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Pins are entities in and of themselves, and are most often viewed independently from the boards of which they are a part. Boards are useful organizing constructs but pins are the principal discovery mechanism. Make sure each and every pin is a useful piece of discrete content, with proper attribution and disclosure.
• Your followers do not have to retain the disclosure if they repin a sponsored pin. You were compensated and must disclose. They were not.
• Follow the 80/20 rule here as well: 80% non promotional pins, 20% promotional, whether for your own content or sponsored.

And there you have it, in two-and-a-half parts, the Pinterest chapter that would have been. What are your tips and thoughts on the best ways to use this platform?

Related articles

• The Pinterest Chapter: A Sidebar on Pin It To Win It (getgood.com)
• The Pinterest Chapter, Part One: Using Pinterest To Promote Your Blog (getgood.com)

The post The Pinterest chapter, Part Two:Engaging with Brands on Pinterest and Sponsored Pins first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Reviewing the content for the second part of my “book chapter” on using Pinterest to promote your blog, I realized there was a great deal of content about sweepstakes and contests on Pinterest as a marketing tactic that really merited its own post. So herewith the Pin It To Win It sidebar.

Straight up, I do not recommend Pin It To Win It as an engagement tactic. There are better, more authentic and far less complicated ways for brands to engage with influencers on Pinterest, which I will outline in my next post, the “official” Part Two of my Pinterest “chapter.”

With the current functionality of the Pinterest platform, Pin It To Win It sweepstakes are complicated and ugly. Entering is usually a multi-step process. Six or more seems to be the norm: follow the brand on Pinterest, register on a website or entry form that you are participating, then create the pins (however many are required) and then go back and register the pins.

They are also a big ole tease. Pinterest is not simply broadcasting, it is long term curation. As a result, users find pins sometimes weeks and months later. Pins promoting long-over sweepstakes? Yucky.

Pinterest sweeps and contests also don’t necessarily give the brand the reach it expects. If the prize is terrific, some Pinterest powerhouses will enter but for most sweeps, entrants will be folks with more modest followings. Creating my personal pet peeve: Pinterest sweeps have spawned hundreds and hundreds of abandoned pinboards created for no other reason than to enter the sweepstakes. Pin Junkyards, if you will.

If/when the Pinterest platform can support sweepstakes and contests within the ecosystem, they could be a lot of fun. Right now though, I do not recommend them as a marketing strategy. You want to take the time to enter them? Go for it. But at the current state of play, Pinterest sweeps don’t contribute to brand building the way everyone hopes.

That said, marketers: if you absolutely must do a sweeps on Pinterest, please familiarize yourself with Pinterest’s brand guidelines for the service’s excellent recommendations.

For ease of reference, the Do’s and Don’ts for sweep and contests below are reproduced in full from Pinterest’s Brand Guidelines (http://business.pinterest.com/brand-guidelines/)

The post The Pinterest Chapter: A Sidebar on Pin It To Win It first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

When I wrote Professional Blogging For Dummies in 2010, I tried to make the advice as evergreen as possible. This was challenging at times, as the For Dummies style is very example driven; in tech, this is the very definition of an “annual plant.” Where possible though  I gave guidelines that could be applied to new tools based on the simple premise that regardless of how we communicate and share with others, we are still communicating and sharing. The why and what of that doesn’t change all that much, even if the how does.

So, if you pick up a copy of my book and read the chapter on social promotion of your blog, much of the advice I give for Facebook and Twitter could very easily be extended to Pinterest. But I thought it might be helpful if I delved a bit deeper. So here is the chapter on Pinterest that I might have written if Pinterest had existed in 2010. Except not completely in For Dummies style. That’s the publisher’s IP.

Let’s start with a baseline. My lens is that of a professional blogger. This has a few ramifications for the discussion.

First and foremost, the professional blogger has an objective for her blog. It is story telling  with a purpose.

Second, this purpose is often to monetize. Even when the surface intent is to convince, as with political, charity and cause related blogs, there is almost always a fundraising component.

So I am not looking at the social graph as a way to connect with family and friends or create a personal scrapbook. It is sharing with intent to promote your blog, grow your overall influence and achieve your professional objectives.

Initially the ethos of Pinterest was to share others’ content, not your own, and in fact, commercial (ie promotional) activity was prohibited. This changed in November 2012 when it launched business accounts so there is no reason to not use the platform to promote your own content.

You just want to do it in the “right” way — welcomed by your followers and effective for the promoted brand, whether it is you, your blog or a product.

If this were a true “For Dummies” chapter, I would have to carefully explain what Pinterest is, how it works and how to use it. But it’s not, so I am going to assume that readers are familiar with Pinterest and understand three basic things about the platform —

• Pinterest is visual. Images are everything.
• It’s curation of content, not broadcasting a message.
• It’s a long-term play. Something pinned today might not get traction for days, weeks or even months.

So let’s dive right into how Pinterest can support your promotional strategy with some suggestions for maximizing your Pinterest promotion.

1. Convert your personal Pinterest account to a business account. Per the Pinterest Terms Of Service, you MUST do this if you are planning to use your Pinterest account for commercial purposes.
2. Make sure your blog/website images are gorgeous, high quality and tell a story visually. If an image needs a caption or title, keep it short and incorporate it in the image so it stays with the pin as it is repinned. But subtly. If your caption is larger than the image, it won’t be pinned/repinned.
3. Use (at a minimum) the tools Pinterest provides business accounts:
   • Make it easy for people to pin your content using the Pin It button.
   • Pinterest’s analytics are pretty basic, but a little information is better than none, so use them to understand the content that people like on your site. So you can create more of it!
4. Give your boards names that clearly identify what sort of content folks will find if they visit the board.  Most folks engage pin by pin, not by checking out boards to see what’s new, but a clear name improves your chances that someone seeing a pin might check out and follow the related pinboard. And thus see subsequent pins. Maybe even dig around in the old ones; see above, Pinterest is a long term play.
5. Pin when your audience is online and engaging with Pinterest. A recent survey of the BlogHer community suggests weekday evenings are when our audience of digitally savvy women is most likely to be engaging with Pinterest.
6. Follow the 80/20 rule — 80% of your pins should be promoting other people’s content, and no more than 20% promoting your own. This is a best practice for any social platform, but it also has a benefit beyond simply NOT being a shill. Fully engaging with the platform shows that you are a knowledgeable and reliable source of relevant content, and helps build your influence. Brands are increasingly looking at influence across the social graph, and not just blog readership, to determine who they want to work with for sponsored opportunities.
7. If your blog content fits one of the new rich pin categories – recipes, products or movie reviews (as of May 2013), I’d go ahead and set it up. While it is still too early to predict the long-term impact of rich pins, it is safe to say that:
   • they clearly make it easier for Pinterest users to access some of your content without visiting your blog, but
   • they will increase the value of pins from your blog/site within the Pinterest ecosystem, which should positively impact repins, your overall influence and traffic to your blog from folks seeking out additional content like the pin they found.
8. Experiment with third party tools that offer additional metrics and support for your pins. Right now, I am experimenting with Pingage.

Next week, Part Two: Engaging with Brands on Pinterest and Sponsored Pins

The post The Pinterest Chapter, Part One: Using Pinterest To Promote Your Blog first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Thank you all for attending and being such a great group.

The post BlogPaws 2013: Successful Principles for Professional Blogging session first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Anyone who knows me, even a little, knows how passionate I am about word-of-mouth marketing and the amazing potential of the voice of the customer (blogger or simply happy camper) to move the needle for brands. It’s part of my professional DNA, and was even before the advent of social media. Back then we called them testimonials and put them in case studies and adverts, but the principle was the same. People like to hear from real people.

My passion for tapping into real voices, real stories is one of the reasons I joined BlogHer nearly three years ago. As part of this team, I am able to help connect brands and bloggers in mutually beneficial ways more than I ever could as a solo independent consultant.

No one is more passionate than I am about the real stories about life and about brands revealed by social content every day.

But I still believe in advertising. Just as passionately.

Saying that the digital banner is “dead” or no longer relevant in today’s marketplace is premature. The banner is only dead if we let it be so, and if we do, shame on “us.” The marketing economy needs advertising  just as much as it needs public relations and word-of-mouth marketing and sponsored content and direct response and every other element of the marketing mix. For a number of reasons.

First, consumers need and want to hear directly from companies about their products. Advertising is the most efficient way to reach a lot of people at a relatively low cost; the company can deliver a consistent controlled message to exactly the audience it wants to reach. Keep in mind — it is not that consumers don’t like ads; it’s that we don’t like BAD ads.

It’s incumbent upon the industry to develop creative, compelling digital ads that help brands move the needle. Should ads use more social content? Sometimes, and the IAB has addressed this with new units like the Portait (one of the Rising Stars). But abandoning the digital banner in favor of “native advertising” (whatever that is, and more on that in a moment) is a fatal error that will destroy the balance of the marketing economy. We need both.

Here’s the thing. Whatever you call it — “native advertising” or sponsored content (my preference) — it relies on the existence of publishing vehicles, whether mainstream media sites like Mashable and Forbes, or independent publishers like the bloggers in the BlogHer Publishing Network. And without advertising revenue, these publishers will be in a world of hurt. Why? Sponsored content revenue is active revenue; the publisher has to create this content, and that costs. Time at best, and in the case of larger publishers, money too. Advertising revenue is passive, and scales easily.

Bottom line, without advertising revenue, the blogs we depend on for word-of-mouth marketing might not exist. It’s no different than the long ago print days, when I managed marketing for tech firms; our policy was that if we believed a publication was appropriate for our press releases, we would at least consider it for our advertising dollars. Sometimes we just couldn’t afford the rates but we understood that the publications we relied on, relied upon advertising to pay their bills.

It is no different for bloggers.

Before I move on to my final point about why  advertising matters in the social marketing economy, I want to address the term “native advertising.” I wholeheartedly agree with Lori Luechtefeld, the author of recent iMedia Connection article, Why “native advertising” must die. She points out that we already have terms for the acceptable activities usually bundled under the term native advertising — to whit, sponsored content and advertorial –so why do we need a new term? The third concept, the misdirection, or deliberate masking of the advertising nature of the content, is a betrayal of consumer trust. She writes:

“But that third manifestation of native advertising? The Misdirection? If marketers and publishers have coined the phrase “native advertising” with the hope of legitimizing practices like that, then we’re all in deep shit. That’s a battle that reputable publications have been fighting since the dawn of journalism, and for good reason. If you blur the line — especially intentionally — between editorial and advertising, you will lose reader trust. And then you’ll lose readers. And then it’s pretty much over.”

Not to mention, this sort of misdirection would  be a flagrant violation of the FTC Guidelines for Endorsements and Testimonials.

Finally, in the social marketing economy, we need to stop worrying about whether content is paid owned or earned. What matters is whether it is shareable. Likewise, we need to get rid of “viral” as the Holy Grail of social marketing. In the real world, viruses are BAD, and by and large, when it comes to corporate content, bad news spreads far faster than the good. What we need to focus on is creating compelling content that speaks to our consumers, not at them. That they will want to share. That’s what creates the “network effect” we are looking for when we say we want our content to go viral.

What we really want is for our customers to share our story with their friends, whether they first saw it in an ad, or on our website or Facebook page, or in sponsored content on a blog or the social graph.

Or all three.

Because isn’t that what REALLY moves the needle, when our customers are engaging with us across multiple platforms, in multiple ways. It’s not about a single click-through. It’s the cumulative effect of all the ways the consumer can engage with us in the balanced marketing economy.

Ads are part of that, and we need their storytelling just as much as we need blogs and editorial, Facebook and Twitter, Pinterest and Instagram, and whatever comes next.

The post The Marketing Economy: Why advertising still matters in a social media, word-of-mouth world first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Earlier this week, the FTC released an updated version of its .Com Disclosures guidance for digital advertising, originally published in 2000. While there is some new information here for bloggers and social media influencers who produce sponsored content for advertisers (and I will get into that below), the document’s principal goal is to provide guidance for proper disclosure of advertising claims in digital, and especially mobile, advertising in light of new technologies. Much like the changes in the endorsement guides in 2009 that were prompted, in part, by the rise of social media and blogs.

Simply put,  the FTC is making sure that, as ad delivery technology changes, claims are properly disclosed and not “lost” in the translation from web to mobile displays.

From the social media perspective, most of the information related to accuracy of claims and disclosure of relationships is the same as is covered in the 2009 Guidance on Endorsements and Testimonials. In other words, there isn’t all that much new here. You still  need to disclose material relationships with brands, in a clear and conspicuous manner proximate to your endorsement, and both you and the sponsor have an obligation to be accurate in your claims about a product. Read my detailed analysis of the examples in the 2009 guide if you want more detail.

Is there anything new here for bloggers? Why yes. It’s not a lot but it’s very nice. The .Com Disclosures document includes new examples that will make it easier for people creating sponsored content to comply with the FTC Guidelines, as well as clarity on the proper ways to disclose additional required information about product claims.

The examples:

Where and how to disclose. As far back as 2009, the FTC was already publicly recommending that disclosures not be buried at the bottom of a post or on a separate page (Once More With Feeling: FTC guidelines, bloggers and companies). Now, however, we have an explicit example.

Takeaway: Do not put your disclosure solely at the bottom of your post.

Recommendation: Include a brief disclosure at the top and if necessary, provide additional details at the bottom.

Note that the FTC also explicitly stated that the form of the disclosure should match the content. If it is a video or sound file, the disclosure should be done in the native format — ie in the video or recording, not simply included in a post or annotation on a social site. The disclosure needs to travel with the content.

However, the exact words you use to disclose? Still up to you.

How to disclose in short-form environments like Twitter. The FTC has always said that the disclosure must be proximate to the endorsement. While common sense would indicate that this means in every sponsored Tweet or Facebook post in which an endorsement appears (and that’s certainly how we handle it at BlogHer), that’s not what was happening on Twitter. Not by a long shot. So, the .Com disclosures have a series of terrific examples of the wrong and right ways to disclose on Twitter. Key points:

1. The disclosure must be in every Tweet. You can’t tweet a single disclosure that covers the whole conversation; there is no guarantee that readers will see the disclosing statement.
2. The hashtag #spon is not sufficiently clear.
3. The word “ad” is sufficiently clear, but needs to be in a prominent place. The FTC also suggests not using a #ad hashtag after a URL or shortlink as it could be overlooked.

Recommendation for a best practice:

• Do include an “umbrella” tweet or post that explains the sponsored content you are about to tweet/post. It is good information for your followers, but as above, not sufficient in itself. For example: “So excited to be here as a guest of #BIGHOTEL at the Super Duper Event #ad”
• Use #ad to disclose along with any hashtag the sponsor has requested, but NOT proximate to any URLs in your tweet/update. Make sure the disclosure stands out.

The .Com Disclosures also included one other tidbit that was clearly aimed at advertising disclosure of claims, but is valuable for bloggers as well. When an advertising  claim merits a longer disclosure than is practical for the format, a hyperlink to  additional information is acceptable, provided that anything material, or “triggering” is included in the original advertisement and  the link is clear and conspicuous.  In other words, you cannot bury CRITICAL disclosures in hyperlinked pages, but you can provide additional details.

“Hyperlinks allow additional information to be placed on a webpage entirely separate from the relevant claim. Hyperlinks can provide a useful means to access disclosures that are not integral to the triggering claim, provided certain conditions (discussed below) are met. Hyperlinked disclosures may be particularly useful if the disclosure is lengthy or if it needs to be repeated (because of multiple triggering claims, for example).

However, in many situations, hyperlinks are not necessary to convey disclosures. If a disclosure consists of a word or phrase that may be easily incorporated into the text, along with the claim, this placement increases the likelihood that consumers will see the disclosure and relate it to the relevant claim.

Disclosures that are an integral part of a claim or inseparable from it should not be communicated through a hyperlink. Instead, they should be placed on the same page and immediately next to the claim, and be sufficiently prominent so that the claim and the disclosure are read at the same time, without referring the consumer somewhere else to obtain this important information.” — from the .Com Disclosures Guide. Emphasis mine.

This could be extremely useful for sponsored programs for products and services in highly regulated industries. The sponsored post would still have to meet all the requirements for accuracy, with any critical product claims disclosed in the post, but bloggers wouldn’t have to include all the “fine print” in their posts.

So, some nice clarity for some critical areas. But nothing to get too worried about.

Unless you are creating deceptive mobile ads for weight loss products or jewelry!

Additional resources:

FTC FAQ on the Endorsement Guides (2010)

Eleven Urban Myths about the FTC Guidelines

The post FTC .Com Disclosures Guidance: What’s new for bloggers and social media influencers first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

It’s not even that Super Bowl advertising has “jumped the shark,” although I largely agree with Deb Rox’s post on BlogHer, that the creativity of Super Bowl advertising continues to suffer, especially when compared to the creativity of good user-generated media. But let’s not kid ourselves, UGC isn’t all sunshine and rainbows either. Some of it is pretty awful too.

I also am not misty-eyed over the old days. There was plenty of cruddy advertising back then too. We just forget the awful ones.

Of course, one person’s trash is another’s treasure. With a few exceptions, — those truly outstanding adverts that rise above every year — there are as many opinions about which ads were the best as there are actual ads. For example, many people love the talking babies. I just think they are creepy. Always have. Always will. And I will not watch GoDaddy commercials. Period.

Overall, I thought last night’s crop was pretty uninspired. Here are a few that I liked:

• Coca-Cola’s security camera footage. Not a new commercial, but a good use of the airtime by the brand.
• Doritos’ UGC commercials. I liked both  – Goat 4 Sale and Fashionista Daddy.
• Get out your hankies for the Budweiser Clydesdale spot. Can never go wrong with the Clydesdales.
• I missed the pre-game hullabaloo over the Mercedes CLA spot so was able to enjoy Willem Dafoe’s devil. That the “punchline” was a key product attribute was excellent. I also liked the Bud Light Stevie Wonder spots. All three were a nice nod to the New Orleans locale for the game.
• AllState’s Mayhem is always good for a laugh, and the Samsung spot with Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd was amusing. Brand integration in the Samsung spot was particularly good.
• The Kia Babyland spot was also funny. While a little light on product attributes, it did a good job linking the brand with the target demographic.
• Hands down, though, the best spot for combining humor with product attributes was the Tide “Stain” spot.

My favorite ad of the evening didn’t even air during the Super Bowl, but was merely teased during the Iron Man 3 spot – an Iron Man extended look on Facebook:

The post Super Bowl ads, quick take first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The post BlogHer Pro Media Kit Workshop slides first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Note to readers: I have been working on this post for forever. I had it finished one day and the changes didn’t save. Go figure. And then I got busy with work and it just sat in my drafts folder. But here, finally, are my thoughts on Harley-Davidson Summer Camp from a marketing perspective.

I don’t have a life list. Mostly because I never think about it until I am doing something fun or interesting for the first time, and it pops into my head —wow if I had a life list, this would be on it, for sure. But of course by then it is too late — I’ve already done whatever it is. So the life list remains unwritten.

However, learning to ride a motorcycle has been on my unwritten life list for more than a year, so I was beyond delighted to attend the Harley-Davidson Summer Camp as BlogHer’s representative.  At some point, I will get around to writing about the experience, probably next spring when I will actually learn to ride at a Harley Rider’s Edge class. In the interim, I urge you to read the sponsored posts written by my 11 fellow Harley campers.

In this post though I want to focus on three marketing lessons we can learn from this event.

1. Choose your attendees wisely. It goes without saying that you want to be sure the bloggers you invite are interested in the topic, but you also want to have a simpatico group, especially with a smaller event. And you don’t necessarily want everyone to already know each other. After all, it isn’t a reunion, it is a sponsored event.

In the case of the Harley event, some of the bloggers knew each other, but everyone also met a few people for the very first time. It was a well-matched group;  with interests and life experiences in common, but diverse as well. It mixed well, and that contributed to the overall success of the event.

Bottom line, you have to know your bloggers. Obviously, I think we do it very well at BlogHer, and if your blogger outreach or event involves reaching digitally savvy women, I hope you consider working with us. But with time, effort and patience, you can do it too. No shortcuts though. You have to get to know people.

2. Vary the agenda. It is perfectly okay to have brand presentations; your attendees expect to hear from you about your product, are hungry to learn more and take pride in covering the event thoroughly. If they weren’t interested, they wouldn’t have come. But also give them time to experience your product. Granted it is a little easier to come up with experiential ideas when your product is a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and  you can put the bloggers on the bikes as both passengers and nascent riders. And a  museum full of memorabilia is pretty compelling too.

But I think it is possible no matter what your product is. You just have to think a little differently about your assets. The goal is to give your attendees a picture of your brand beyond product attributes and marketing messaging. Here are just some of the things you can do:

• Demonstrations and trial use (as Harley did) work for nearly every product under the sun, and the more freedom you give the attendees to use the product, the more compelling it will be. In other words, demonstrations good, letting them use it, better and giving them a challenge or task where they can be creative with it, best.
• Let them meet your employees and other stakeholders, in both formal and informal settings. In my experience, women bloggers are particularly interested in meeting women who work for your company, at all levels. What’s it like to work for you? What was their career path? If you have a good story here, tell it!
• Your company is part of a physical community and probably active in civic organizations and local charities. Get out of your building and let your attendees meet the organizers and leaders of those groups. Even better, people who have benefited. And best, put them to work somehow. Planting a garden in the local park. Working at a soup kitchen.

3. Mix it up — Part of the incentive for attending sponsored events is the opportunity to meet and hang out with other bloggers. Harley-Davidson did a great job leaving time for socializing in the agenda, among the group and with Harley employees at informal unstructured events like a Milwaukee Brewers game and an evening cruise along the river into Lake Michigan.  The group hit it off so well in fact that we started a Facebook Group so we could still “hang out,” albeit virtually. Some truly free time is also a good idea. It doesn’t have to be a lot, but make sure there is some downtime in the schedule for your attendees to call home and write their blog posts!

What things do you think make a great sponsored event?

Disclosure: As noted in my post, I was hosted by Harley-Davidson during Summer Camp, which I attended in my role as VP Influencer Marketing at BlogHer.

The post What I learned at (Harley-Davidson) Summer Camp first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Wait. What?

You mean commercial boards and sponsored pinning may have been in technical violation of Pinterest’s TOS all these months?

Yes indeedy. Given the importance of widespread commercial adoption of the service to its ultimate ability to monetize, it is highly unlikely that it would have cracked down on the commercial activity, but until last week, the TOS prohibited both commercial use and encouraging commercial use by others unless the activity was pre-approved by Pinterest.

So, what do you need to do if you are planning to use Pinterest for commercial purposes?

You must comply with the Pinterest Terms of Service and the FTC’s Guideline for Commercial Endorsements. Here’s how:

1. You need to have a business account and agree to the Business Terms of Service. If you already have an account, it is easy to convert it to a business account, and if you do not, you simply open it as a business account. Both can be done at business.pinterest.com. HubSpot did a nice tutorial with screen shots if you need a little guidance. Important: ANYONE using Pinterest for commercial purposes, even an individual, needs to have a business account to be in compliance with the Pinterest TOS. The pages don’t look any different but Pinterest has released some tools for the business accounts and has promised more, which is an incentive above and beyond the simple ethical consideration of complying with the TOS!
2. You need to develop your policy for proper disclosure of commercial activity on your Pinterest account to comply with FTC requirements for commercial endorsements. If you are a commercial brand and your account has a company name, your boards likely will be presumed to be commercial content, so you should be fine from a disclosure standpoint. However, if you are an individual, you must make sure that your affiliations are clear. I recommend:

• As a best practice —  put a clear statement in your bio about your affiliations.
• To comply with the FTC, label any boards and pins related to commercial activity in the description. For example, “My Golfer’s Paradise board is brought to you by GOLF BRAND” on the pinboard description, and on the pins themselves, a sponsor statement such as “Sponsored by GOLF BRAND” or “Love this putter from GOLF BRAND. #sponsored.”

Next — and this  part is optional, not a Pinterest or FTC requirement, but I personally recommend developing your own guidelines for your use of Pinterest to best leverage the platform and ensure consistency of your approach over time. Plan the work and work the plan!

If you represent a brand, you want the boards to fit the ethos of Pinterest, and help build awareness, interest, consideration and purchase. Don’t just slap up boards with pictures from your catalogs or details of the latest promotion. Think about how you can make your content valuable to the community so they will repin it and help you spread the word.

If you are an individual, you want your sponsored Pinterest content to be consistent with your non-sponsored personal pins. Your taste and interests are why people have followed your boards, and you don’t want to disappoint. Bottom line, if you have any sort of following, brands will be approaching you. Best to have your own strategy lined up so you know which opportunities are worthwhile, and which ones are not.

The post Pinterest changes TOS, allows commercial use: What does this mean for you? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I was lucky enough to be hosted, along with 11 BlogHer Network bloggers, at a 2 day event at Harley-Davidson headquarters in Milwaukee earlier this week.

Here on Marketing Roadmaps, I will be sharing some observations about the event and the impeccable execution of the Harley-Davidson team. And over on my personal blog Snapshot Chronicles, I will share my personal experiences over the 2 days as well as some amazing tidbits from Harley history. Watch for these posts over the next week or so.

Disclosure: I am a BlogHer employee and attended this event as a representative of BlogHer.

The post Lookin’ for Adventure first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Infographics are all the rage these days. Every new media company seems to have one (or more) to visually explain their offerings, and every social consultant seems to have one to share their analyses.  The damn things are all over Pinterest and there are even entire websites devoted to infographics.

Except I find most of them are pretty useless. You can’t print them out unless you have a large format printer, and the print is so tiny you can’t read them on the screen most of the time either. Which is tragic on the rare occasions that  they actually do have useful information.

In fact, I would like to know who got the brilliant idea to jam so many charts and table onto a single poster? I’ve seen more than a few infographics that DO have useful info, but  just don’t get why it has to be served up on an illegible poster.

Once in a while, I find a useful, useable one, like this illustration of the corporate ownership of major consumer brands or this one about social media strategy. Not surprisingly, the ones I like tend to be simple, and focused on conveying a single piece of information in a graphic manner.

But more often than not, they  just seem like attempts to jump on the infographic bandwagon — Look Ma! I can make an infographic!

For example, I love the Copyblogger. In fact, I recommend the site in Professional Blogging for Dummies. But the infographic he created recently to illustrate 22 Ways to Create Compelling Content When You Don’t Have a Clue wasn’t any more useful, IMNSHO, than the original post. Sure it was pretty pictures, but there wasn’t any improvement on the information.

And that is what I want from an infographic. A useful infographic materially improves upon the source data by combining multiple sources of information to create new meaning. More than just a poster with lots of “stuff,” it should transform the data into something new.

A picture is definitely worth a thousand words, but a picture made of a thousand words is not.

Related articles

• I am So Over Infographics (technologyleaders.com)
• 5 Questions to Ask before Jumping on the Infographics Bandwagon (contentmarketinginstitute.com)

The post The one in which I declare war on infographics first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Today I’ve got a short post over on my personal blog about the new Cartier ad, L’Odyssée de Cartier. Up next here (maybe tomorrow) a few words about infographics.

The post Happy Saint Patrick’s Day first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

As many on the comment thread on Avitable pointed out, this sort of contest, in which consumers are encouraged to vote for their favorite bloggers so one of the bloggers can win a tremendous prize, nearly always turns into a popularity contest, rife with accusations of gaming the system and so on. Quite simply, they bring out the worst in human nature. Even when there isn’t a “confusion” about the rules.

My advice: stay away from this sort of event. No matter how good it sounds in the brainstorming session. There is a reason why we have election law and elaborate protections to prevent voter fraud, hanging chads notwithstanding. Unless you can prevent fraud, or even the hint of it, do something else with your marketing dollars.

And the truly sad thing? For those guarding the castle gates from the social media juggernaut, the whole mess is evidence that the blogosphere is a dangerous place for brands. No matter who was or was not at fault, the Chrysler brand has been tarnished by association with the whole thing. Even if they don’t  pull back from social media now, others will, and that’s a missed opportunity all around.

The post The blog contest you are so glad wasn’t yours… first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Last week, I was privileged to participate on a panel about blog monetization at the inaugural Family Travel Conference . In my presentation I talked a bit about the different ways to make money with your blog as well as some of the considerations if you decide to go the advertising route, including the advantages of working with an ad network. My fellow panelists were Steve Bookbinder of   Digital Media Training, Tim Springstead of Travora (formerly the Travel Ad Network), and moderator Michael Theodore of the Interactive Advertising Bureau.

In the Q&A there were a lot of questions about Google and SEO, as Steve had talked a lot about this in his prepared remarks. Now my position on this has remained relatively unchanged for the past 15 years.

You should absolutely optimize your content for search. After all, you do want to be found. Content written for search engines however is not necessarily good for people, whereas smart, compelling content written for people is perfectly acceptable to the search engine. Tweak a bit here and there, use keywords, absolutely. I don’t recommend you make your blog HARDER to find.

But, write for people, not search engines.

And don’t make your business decisions based on whether Google will reward OR penalize your site. Search is only one of the ways your audience finds you.

During the panel the audience and panelists discussed this at some length. One of the examples we discussed was syndicating your work, and whether Google will penalize you if the same post appears in multiple places.

No one knows exactly how Google “does its magic” but if there is proper attribution, usually a link back to the original, Google does not penalize syndicated content.  I think its algorithm will get even smarter as time goes on, as it gains more understanding about reputable aggregators/syndicators  and slime balls. Syndication is becoming an important business model on the web and Google will (if it hasn’t already) figure out the best ways to distinguish between syndicated content — when my post appears on another site with my permission — and content farms , which steal other people’s copyrighted works.

BUT even if it did not — even if syndicating your content to another online publication WOULD be penalized by the search engine, it still might be the best choice, if that site delivers more traffic or helps you establish your expert reputation. I advised the folks to look at the whole picture, not just one tool, one source of traffic.

Toward the end of the panel, we delved a bit into social promotion —Facebook, Pinterest etc. All the panelists felt that Pinterest would be big in travel, and were in general agreement that one didn’t have to be engaging in all the social sharing sites, just the ones that mattered to your audience (something you’ve all read here more than once!) Then one of my fellow panelists said something to the effect of: he wouldn’t advise the audience to abandon Facebook for Pinterest, to which I replied, “I might,” but never got to circle back and explain what I meant

So conference attendees, if you are wondering what I meant — here’s the gist. Far too often folks (whether bloggers or marketers) equate “having a digital/social marketing strategy’ with having a Google and Facebook strategy. A Twitter strategy. Next everyone will be asking, what’s your Pinterest strategy.

This is like nails on a chalkboard to me. What you need is a marketing strategy, and then you look at the toolkit to figure out which tools are the best ones for the job.

Searching (Google) and sharing (Facebook et al) only matter when there’s something to search for or share. Without content, they are irrelevant. So, focus on your content first. Tell your story.

Because if Facebook, Google and all the rest disappeared tomorrow, you would still have a story.

That’s what matters. And what your readers come for.

Related articles

• Online Marketing News: Pinterest’s Sneaky Tactics, Keeping Leaders Honest, 100 Million Videos Watched Per Day (toprankblog.com)
• Pinterest quietly profits off its users’ links – Feb. 10, 2012 (exitbusiness.wordpress.com)
• Pinterest: 10 reasons why it will be bigger than Twitter (umpf.co.uk)

The post Brief report on blog monetization panel at Family Travel Conference first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Because Facebook is clearly where so many brands are going these days. It reminds me a little of the “web rush” in the mid/late 90s when mainstream brands realized what many tech companies had grokked since the first browser in 1993, that the browser had changed the marketing equation for good. It was a little like a gigantic penny drop. Suddenly every brand had a website, and URLs were promoted everywhere.

Now it is Facebook. Everywhere. Marketing strategies built around Shares and Likes.

This makes me very nervous. Your marketing strategy should include Facebook. With its user base edging every upward to a billion, you would be foolish to not use the social network in your marketing plan.

BUT, your marketing strategy shouldn’t be a Facebook strategy. No matter how small or large you are, don’t put all your eggs, even just for a single promotion, into one basket.

Especially this basket, over which you have no control. All those fans you are spending so much of your budget acquiring? Your connection with them relies almost entirely on Facebook. Sure, you can sign them up for email lists and such, but the community aspect? That happens on Facebook.

And what Facebook gives, Facebook can taketh away. Not literally of course. But it can change its terms or add fees. I am not saying it will hold your brand hostage, but it could.

So, when you are integrating Facebook into your marketing strategy, think about how you can leverage its benefits while protecting your brand’s assets and consumer goodwill.

Go Patriots!

The post Is Facebook the new website? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

This year, however, that is pretty much what you are going to get. There are a few trends that I have been watching for a while now, always intending to post about them but never quite having  the time. Here’s the first.

Facebook  just wants “to be a real boy” and become a social content platform.

Facebook gets lots of eyeballs — 800 million active  worldwide users, 50% of whom access it everyday according to the company’s stats page. And the boys behind Facebook are smart cookies; they know they need to give people a reason to keep coming back. But, it seems like they aren’t entirely sure that catching up with friends and family and sharing “stuff”  is unique and defensible enough. And mining user data only works if you keep the users.

So they’re hitching their horses to the content wagon, and setting themselves up to be a content platform. Brand pages, apps, timelines and other enhancements designed to make Facebook a source of information, not just connection.

Brands are diving right in. Everyone has a Facebook landing page, contest or app. The ubiquitous URL in advertising has given way to the Facebook like and share buttons.

At the end of the day though, the Facebook platform is inherently hostile to robust content development. It was developed for short form messages and social connections, and layering apps and other tools to make it more content friendly doesn’t make it so.

But we’re sure as shootin’ going to try. Facebook has the eyeballs that brands want, and doesn’t want them to go elsewhere.  The more of our activities and transactions it can own, the better that database gets.  In the coming year,  more and more brands will shift content to Facebook that in the “old days”  would have been on brand-owned microsites.

The $25K question is, will they really recognize sufficient benefit from being on the Facebook platform to make up for the inherent unfriendliness of the platform to branding and deep content. Not to mention the murky area of who owns what on Facebook….

The more transactional, ephemeral and social the content, the more successful the efforts will be. Deep thinking? Complex topics? I just don’t see Facebook as a hospitable place for this. The Facebook brand page just doesn’t have enough branding to make the brands happy, or enough information to make the consumer happy. For one thing,  all the custom developed apps bypass one of the key benefits of Facebook, the simple user interface.

Brands will try, but in the end, I think the winning strategy will continue to be to link into the social graph to promote or aggregate content that lives elsewhere on microsites and blogs. This allows the brand to leverage the social aspects of Facebook, but still own their own robust content platforms.

Unfortunately, at the moment, things are moving in another direction,  and 2012 is going to be the year of bigger and splashier brand pages on Facebook.

Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.

The post Facebook just wants “to be a real boy” first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

You could argue that posting on Facebook or sending a tweet isn’t work per se. We, the users, are getting something in exchange for our activity — the use of the network to accomplish a personal objective. The question is whether the value is balanced — are we getting enough from our participation in exchange for the value we are helping these companies build?

Honestly, that’s a question that each person must answer for themselves. Participating on Facebook DOES mean that you are surrendering some of your personal privacy, and a great deal of personal information that is going to be aggregated, analyzed, mined and sold. Every Facebook item you post, link or share is going to earn money for Facebook and its investors somehow. Maybe ad revenue. Maybe data mining revenue. But certainly revenue. Facebook is a business, not a public service.

Is it worth it to you? If yes, play away. If not, don’t.

And of course, you can figure out ways to monetize YOUR participation in the networks. Use them to promote your business. Or yourself. It’s all about extracting the value you require from your participation.

The other “work for free” model prevalent in the social media space is influencer relations, which owes its structure to the earned media model inherited from public relations. I’ve written about this before — Is earned media an anachronism?

In a nutshell, the idea is that companies and brands can have such compelling stories that consumers will write about them, share them on their social networks, for free, without compensation. And you know, sometimes that’s true.

Sometimes a product is so compelling that we are happy to harness our word of mouth for no other reason than we love the product. Perhaps Apple products are the only ones that can generate widespread mass word of mouth at the mere whisper of a new version, but we all have things we love that we’re happy to share just because we love them.

I’ll use myself as an example. Recently I bought a SpotBot Pet, a little spot carpet cleaner from Bissell that I first learned about at the BlogPaws conference. It is TERRIFIC, and eventually I will get around to posting a review on my personal blog.

But… products we are intrinsically passionate about are few and far between. Certainly far fewer than the number of firms reaching out to bloggers asking them to work for free on behalf of the brand. To write about a new product. Or attend an event and tweet it up. And so on.

So here’s where I draw the line. If it is work — if you are asked to do a specific thing in a specific fashion or to a deadline — you should be compensated for your time and expertise. Because if you are not paid for your work, it is volunteer work, and if you are going to volunteer for something, it should be something that you care about personally and passionately. I’m pretty sure cereal and motor oil don’t qualify. At least for most of us.

Is a free product adequate compensation? In my opinion, it all depends on what you are being asked to do. Try the product and participate in a short survey? Or leave a comment on a Facebook page? Probably yes. Try the product and write a 500 word blog review? Unless it is use of a car for a year or some other equally large “in kind,” probably not. It’s your call, but remember that the FTC and the IRS do not distinguish between cash and “in kind” compensation. You get a free product, you must disclose, and if you get enough of them, you probably should be reporting the “income” on your taxes. Disclaimer: not a lawyer, not an accountant, consult yours if you have questions about your legal obligations, especially for taxes, which unlike the FTC guidelines, DO have defined penalties for getting it wrong.

So, if you are working in exchange for free product, whatever it is, best to make sure it is something you actually want. Because you may have to pay taxes on it. If it is not something you need or want, cashy money probably would be more useful.

A final point on working for free. I am not saying you shouldn’t volunteer your time, skills or blog content to causes — or even brands — that you care about and want to support. Everyone has to make their own decision on that score. However, if you do work for free, if you give it away, don’t expect the recipient to turn around in future and say, wow, you are so great I should be paying you. Volunteering in the hopes of a paying gig is a losing proposition. It is VERY unlikely to happen.

So when someone asks if they could just pick your brain, or could you just post about this thing on this day and include the following three points, or whatever, understand that you have just created a non-paying customer. And no one can afford too many of those.

Finallly, there’s a fine distinction that I don’t want you to miss. Doing something of your own volition — whether writing a blog, sharing a link or posting on Facebook — is very different than working to someone else’s specifications or timeline. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference when the email box is overflowing with “opportunities.” All I can advise is to consider the value to both parties in the exchange. If it is an even exchange of value, if you are getting what you need to make it worth it (whether cash, products, connections or feeling good about helping out) and so is the other party, go for it.

If not, you may just want to say no.

—

Disclosure: I work for BlogHer. We pay the bloggers who write for us.

The post Should you work for free? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been working on the launch of BlogHer’s new consumer panel, Visionaries. I’m very excited about the possibilities we have with the panel to connect the BlogHer audience with brands.

Once or twice a month, we’ll be sending panel members a survey or perhaps even an offer to try a free product. The first trial offer is in the field — sign up for Visionaries now and get a full 12-ounce bottle of Dove® Body Wash with NutriumMoisture.

Click  here to join.

The post BlogHer Visionaries first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I’m not going to rehash the details here, because this post is not about piling it on. The company, brand and agency have been thoroughly schooled in the blogosphere already. Instead, I am going to focus on a few lessons that have nothing to do with the specific brand, that anyone involved in blogger outreach can learn from.

However, this post will make more sense if you know the basics about the ConAgra program. Short version: blogger event in New York. Promoted as an exclusive opportunity to experience a chef-prepared meal. On the day, entree and dessert revealed to be frozen meals. Ooops.

For more details,  please take a moment to read the NYT article and the links below to read the blog fallout after the event.

Lesson Number 1: Don’t fall so in love with your great, clever idea that you can’t see its flaws. Every idea has flaws; every message, detractors. You have got to be willing to be your own devil’s advocate. Ask yourself — what can go wrong? Where can this idea fail? Who might not like our idea and why?  I’m not saying be Debbie Downer on your own creativity. I am however advising you to think it through. Understand that there will ALWAYS be someone who doesn’t like your concept. The question is, are they outliers or your target? If your target audience ain’t gonna like it, don’t do it. That’s what happened with MotrinMoms a few years ago, and it’s clearly part of what happened here.

Poke holes in your own idea. Better you than a bunch of bloggers and the New York Times.

Lesson Number 2: People don’t like surprises. Especially when they make them feel foolish. Think about it. If you are old enough to remember Candid Camera, you’ll know what I mean. The audience of the stunts enjoyed them. The victim, not so much.

More proof? Ever read the back page of a book before deciding whether to invest the time? Ever visit a spoiler site for your favorite TV show for a sneak peek at what’s coming? Ever shake your holiday or birthday presents? Or try to sneak a corner of the tape off and then rewrap it? Yes, brother dear, I am talking to you. Or ransack your mom’s gift closet to see if there’s anything new there? My son did this.

People want to know what to expect. We like to be prepared. In fact, recent research from UC  San Diego suggests that knowing the ending of a book increases our enjoyment.

And we don’t like to be embarrassed.  It is really bad form to embarrass your customers.

Remember this when planning your blogger programs. Building around a big “reveal” is a dicey proposition, and if the reveal might disappoint instead of enchant? Seriously. Go back to the drawing board. Create something that will appeal to your target audience without deception. It may not be as alluring or sexy, but it’s far less likely to backfire. The Sotto Terra backlash was not “bloggers gone wild” by any means. It was people feeling betrayed and deceived. Not a good way to build a relationship.

Lesson Number 3: Disclosure. Do not do programs without disclosing your brand’s participation. EVER! Strictly speaking, I don’t think the Sotto Terra event violates the FTC disclosure guidelines, as full disclosure of the brand’s involvement was provided when the exchange of value (the meal) happened. However, I am not crazy about the ethics here. Bloggers were encouraged to promote an event as a prize, apparently without full information about the sponsor of the event. Could the bloggers have done a little research and learned that the two hosts were ConAgra consultants? Sure. But they shouldn’t have to. That’s your job as the sponsor.

What did you take away from the Sotto Terra story? Please stay away from brand-bashing. I want to focus on what brands, and bloggers, can do better to ensure mutually beneficial outcomes, not on pointing fingers or trashing the participants in this tale.

Related articles

• ConAgra’s Switcheroo Doesn’t Go Over Well With Bloggers (mediabistro.com)
• Advertising: When Bloggers Don’t Follow the Script, to ConAgra’s Chagrin (nytimes.com)
• ConAgra Forced to Apologize for Tricking Bloggers Into Eating ConAgra Food [Public Relations] (gawker.com)

The post Lessons to be learned from ConAgra/Ketchum’s Sotto Terra blogger event first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Every so often though, someone calling themselves a marketing professional does something that makes me embarrassed for my profession.

More than a few of these instances have occurred in the past few years, quite specifically related to the practice of blogger outreach. You’ve read about them here and elsewhere too — bad pitches, rude PR people, “spray and pray” mass mailings. And so on.

Many of these are mistakes made out of simple ignorance, lack of experience and miscommunication. Some are simply rude; for example, when a blogger says she isn’t interested in the pitch, replying back implying that she’s stupid is the social media equivalent of the classic Saturday Night Live line, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

Most faux pas can be forgiven. There is however one for which there is no excuse. Pay close attention, aspiring and practicing PR pros and marketers.

Don’t pitch on the grave.

It is NEVER okay to pitch someone who has recently had a death in the family or her circle of friends. And particularly on the back of a blog post about the death. NEVER, NOT EVER.

If you know the blogger well, a message of condolence or a donation to the charity in memory of the deceased is perfectly fine.

But if you don’t know the blogger, don’t use the death in an attempt to bond with her, on any basis, about anything. It’s crass, and the social media equivalent of ambulance chasing.

In fact, when I was consulting, I advised clients to do a read-through of the blogs in their outreach list the day they planned to send their pitch just to be sure there hadn’t been a tragedy or death in the family. In which case, they should remove the blogger from the pitch list regardless of how perfect the pitch was.

Obviously, if the blogger hasn’t posted or publicly mentioned the death in Facebook or Twitter, you aren’t pitching on the grave, you’re just the victim of poor timing. If the blogger replies, apologize and move on.

Don’t believe this happens? A good friend has had it happen twice. She posted about a death, someone pitched her on the back of the post, and when she pushed back, the sender was not only NOT apologetic, but also rude.

That’s just terminally clueless.

The post Pitching on the grave first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

anachronism — A thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, esp. a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned (Source: Google Search)

Perhaps anachronism is a little harsh, but not by much. The whole concept pf earned media, as part of the triumvirate of Earned, Paid and Owned, has always been a little squishy. There’s just something a little bogus in the idea that the story being told was so tremendously good that the brand earned its non-paid media mention in a story, when of course brands, entertainment properties and celebrities spend millions of dollars every month to PR agencies and publicists to obtain these placements. There’s nothing unpaid about earned media.

Nevertheless, earned media  is where “we” have been accounting for the results of blogger outreach and other word of mouth engagement programs. In part because many early social media engagement programs originated in PR agencies for whom the earned media model made sense (or at least as much sense as it ever will.)

Certainly more so than paid media, which was clearly understood to be paid advertising media, and owned media, which is a bit more complex but boils down to the assets that the company controls – its packaging, trucks, website and so on.

The problem is that nothing is that simple. It never was, but social media and the rise of the engaged consumer has changed the dynamic to the point that classifying things into three buckets just doesn’t work any more.

Blogger outreach programs often include freelance fees paid to the bloggers for their work. So that’s paid media, I guess. When readers of those posts leave comments or post to Facebook or tweet about the posts? Earned. What about if the blogger who was paid to write a post, either a sponsored post on her own blog or as a freelance assignment, tweets it out on her own initiative?

Digital ads almost always include Share icons for Twitter and Facebook. So the media is paid, but the sharing is what? Pearned, for paid + earned?

And then there’s Facebook. How do we classify the activity on Facebook? A brand page is owned, I suppose. But are the comments earned? And what about custom promotional tabs? Are those owned or paid? And when someone shares it, is it now earned?

Clearly, we’ve outgrown these simple models of Paid, Earned and Owned.

What matters is whether consumers want to share. It doesn’t really matter whether the story you are telling starts in paid, earned or owned media.

Will consumers share it?

This concept of shared, or shareable, media is easy to understand. Much harder to execute, because it crosses so many functional lines – media, PR, marketing, advertising, creative. Much harder to measure, because it is more than pageviews or Twitter followers.

Up for the challenge? I am, and would love to hear how you are navigating this world.

The post Is “earned media” an anachronism? first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

What exactly is a “mommy card,” I wondered (and tweeted.)

Now before, you jump in and think, “how stupid are you, Susan, to not know what a “mommy card” is,” rest assured, I had a pretty good idea of what was intended.  I just thought it was a bit silly and more than a bit sexist.

Unless you also have a separate line of  “daddy cards,” promoting the “mommy card”  associates the act of parenting entirely with one gender. And that is sexist.  Undoubtedly inadvertent but still….

The term “calling card” seems perfectly suitable if you don’t want to call it a business card due to the more personal nature of the information.  Or if you need to be more descriptive, call it a Family Card or a Parent Card, since it lists important family information that a parent might want to share with a babysitter or the parents of their children’s friends.

But this isn’t a post about sexism or gender bias. If I was going to stop at my rant about “the mommy card,” this post would be over on my personal blog Snapshot Chronicles.

Here, I write about marketing and social media. And I’d like you to take away two marketing lessons from my Twitter exchange about “mommy cards.”

First, if your brand is criticized online, you need to figure out if the critic is a rational individual or a wing-nut. Ignore the wing-nuts and engage with the rational ones. VistaPrint figured out I was a rational human being, and reached out to me on Friday.

The company Twitter persona told me  why they promoted them as “mommy cards” and promised to share my feedback with the product team.

As I said in my tweets, I like the company. I’m a customer. I just didn’t like the concept of the “mommy card.” Full props to them for monitoring the Twitter stream and actively engaging with a customer. Makes it that much more likely that they’ll get my Christmas calendar order again this year.

Lesson number 2: VistaPrint told me that they used the term “mommy card” because the research indicated they should. My reply was that research didn’t make the term any less sexist.I firmly believe you can market calling cards to mothers without calling them “mommy cards.”

Now, you may disagree with me on the “mommy card” point (and I fully expect someone to do so), so don ‘t get too hung up on whether you agree with me that it is sexist. What I really want you to remember is that sometimes the research is wrong. Or more accurately, it is right, but you still shouldn’t do it.

This is particularly true when marketing to moms. Just calling a product “for moms” doesn’t make it so.

Be very careful about playing the mommy card.

The post The Mommy Card first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Because the press release I received this morning for the “Made for Social Media” attraction fragrance  is just so good bad, in a good way, that I have to share it.

As a friend said in a private email, sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

But I’m not going to tell a bunch of jokes about the product, which apparently contains “a combination of human pheromones that have been clinically proven to increase feelings of arousal, excitement, social warmth and friendliness in both men and women.”  You can do that all on your own with no help from me.

I’m not even going to wonder about why I received the release, having never written about fragrances or pheremones, on any of my blogs.

Those two topics are such low-hanging fruit they are reseeding themselves as  I type this post. And I do write about social media, so I guess I’m fair game on that score.

Nor am I going to name the company, an aggregator of online forums, or delve too deeply into the value proposition of the scent, the subtext of which seems to be that social media types are so desperate, we need special help to attract a mate (and yes, I know that sentence will probably resurface the troll that drops in to insult me about once or twice a year. So be it.)

In the release, the company claims this endeavor will launch an entirely new business model for productizing through its online channels. And here’s where I go “What?”

They are going to sell a fragrance — a product that generally buyers like to smell before they fork over their cash — through forums, user bases that are notoriously defensive about any form of commerce occurring “on the boards?” Really? It seems like a commercial mis-match in the making.

Maybe they are just hopping on the social media bandwagon, figuring that all you need to do is slap a little “social media” on the front of the product and the news will just go viral (option 2).

Not to get too meta on you, but maybe they DID read my blog and know that I tend to comment on absurd things. Maybe their goal is to make us laugh? And they just couldn’t get the release finished in time for April 1? Option 3.

Whether they are serious and just misguided (options 1 and 3) or opportunistic (option 2), it seems like a real long shot to me.

And that’s what I want YOU to think about when you are percolating your really awesome breakthrough social media idea that is so groundbreaking it just has to go viral RIGHT AWAY.

Just because you call it social, doesn’t mean the community will agree.

Use social media to engage your audience in an authentic conversation about mutually interesting topics. Not just as a label to capitalize on a popular trend. It’s a bit like greenwashing, and just as offensive.

The post Smells like Social Media first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I was privileged to join author Dr. Irene Levine and former Ladies’ Home Journal editor-in-chief Myrna Blyth on a panel at the American Society for Journalists and Authors conference last Saturday in New York. The topic was how to avoid “blog burnout,” which was a tad ironic since lately I have plenty of things I want to write about on my blogs, just no time to do it.

Two topics that are in the pending file for Marketing Roadmaps this month are some tips for finding WHO to contact at a brand or PR agency if you want to pitch an idea, and some recent thoughts on the topic of  “earned media.” And over on Snapshot Chronicles,I’ve got loads of pictures from recent trips — Mom 2.0 in New Orleans and Gettysburg with the 5th grade field trip. Soon I hope!

In the meantime, I did promise the attendees that I would post my slides, as we had some technical difficulties and I wasn’t able to use them during the panel.

The post Beating Blog Burnout panel at ASJA 2011 in New York first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Last week, I attended Mom 2.0 in New Orleans, and a wonderful time was had by all.

Except for the flight home Saturday night during which I (and my fellow passengers) experienced the worst turbulence  I have EVER experienced in 30+ years of flying. Pilots and crew of Delta flight 858 from NOLA to LaGuardia, you rock.

At the conclusion of the Nuts and Bolts of Pitching panel, an audience member asked the panelists how bloggers can find the right people at a PR or media agency for their pitch. I’ve got thoughts on the subject, and will post some tips  later this week.

Bonus for you:  If you have my book Professional Blogging For Dummies, there are a few pages on the topic there as well, including some insights from PR pros. If you don’t yet have a copy, right now there is a special 20th Anniversary For Dummies bundle of WordPress For Dummies, 3rd Edition and Professional Blogging For Dummies that is a pretty good deal on Amazon (affiliate link).

Special for the attendees at the session that Stacey Ferguson and I led, High Tea & High Strategy: PDF of our slides. And our thanks for joining us Saturday afternoon when there were so many tourism-oriented options to choose from.

The post High Tea and High Strategy at Mom 2.0 first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The full schedule with times and locations is here.

I’ll be joining these funny ladies in Portland, BlogHer co-founder and president, strategic alliances Jory DesJardins will be with them in Seattle and ceo/co-founder Lisa Stone will be at the Bay Area events.

Let’s Panic About Babies is a humorous look at parenthood. Because, really, if you don’t laugh, you’ll often want to cry, and laugh lines are so much more attractive than worry lines.

Every new parent has doubts about the often uncomfortable and frequently scary adventure that is parenthood. And we screw up left and right.  It’s a good thing that children don’t remember much of what happens before the age of 5. It’s like a free pass on the early mistakes; you know that at least those disasters won’t contribute to your child’s eventual psychological problems. After 5 though — yeah, all your fault.

Unless you are prone to frequent psychotic episodes, these doubts will continue well into your child’s adulthood. Unfortunately most advice books tend to take a preachy tone, which only increases our doubts about our capabilities as parents.

Let’s Panic is the perfect antidote to the “What to expect” genre, and should be in every parent’s toolkit for when they run into the inevitable Sanctimommy (©Mom-101).

Will you love every joke in the book? Maybe not. Like most humor, some things will strike you funnier than others. But overall, if you get this book, you will laugh, cry and probably pee your pants. Just a little.

I’m looking forward to hearing them read from the book, and hope you can join us at one of the stops.

Not able to join us? You can of course buy a copy at your online bookseller of choice (my Amazon affiliate link). Even better, BlogHer is giving away 20 copies. Just leave a comment on the Let’s Panic tour page on BlogHer.com for a chance to win one.

—

Disclosure: I work for BlogHer, was involved in the planning of the tour and received my copy of the book from the publisher.

Cross posted to Snapshot Chronicles.

The post Let’s Panic About Babies in the Pacific Northwest and Bay Area first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

When I wrote about who owns social media last May, I couldn’t believe THEN that we were still asking this question. I’m both surprised (and yet not) a year later that we are *still* asking. As though there were a simple, and only one, right answer, and if we ask enough, eventually we’ll get whatever answer we want to hear.

Um no. Not going to happen. Social media involves people, and people are messy. Social media engagement also depends on our expression of both our individuality and the collective mind. Try to fit that neatly in a demographic box. The mass market still exists, it is just influenced by multiple micro-markets and their denizens.

No simple answer then.

In the column I wrote last year, I concluded that the company and the consumer were the “owners” of the relationship, and ad and PR agencies were facilitators. I’d like to take this a step further and advocate for an integrated marketing approach that I think will ultimately be more successful and productive.

Don’t tell anyone, but good social media marketing is simply good marketing. Just as in the “old days,” you wouldn’t limit yourself to a single tool in the marketing toolkit – advertising, PR, direct response, loyalty programs etc., no matter how successful it was, in the “new days,” you still need to deploy multiple tools. You can’t get seduced by the flavor (or Facebook) of the month and shift all your spend because “that’s what the cool kids are doing.”  You need an integrated approach to reach your consumer, because that’s how she consumes the information she gets. It’s not a different brand before and after we buy, in an ad versus a news article versus a blog post.

People use information from different sources in different ways.  A personal referral – our old friend word-of-mouth – is treated differently than the information conveyed in an advertisement or a magazine article. But we use all the information we collect to make a purchase decision, and we generally require more than one. No matter how much Aunt Sue loves her car, we look for independent reviews and probably consult the brand website.

Our marketing message needs to appropriately be in all the important places a consumer might look for it. Do we spend more of our budget in the most productive places? Absolutely. But smart marketers don’t make the mistake of limiting the plan to a single tactic. It’s marketing suicide. Even infomercial brands like OxiClean have distribution strategies in addition to the commercials, and do not get me started on all the failed high-tech start-ups that thought they could make it on PR buzz alone.

Smart marketers also don’t let functional silos, whether internal departments, outside agencies or a combination of both,  derail the story. Especially now, when customers have such a strong voice and will more easily see if the emperor has no clothes.  It’s not enough to hand out a messaging document and timeline to the various functions and allow them to go forth in their independent silos, with their independent strategies.

This of course brings ownership of strategy back to the brand, which is where it belongs. Agencies advise, and yes, strategize. But the brand owns it.

What does that mean in practice?

Agencies that take an integrated approach to strategy, either by vertical integration or actively seeking to work with in tandem with their counterpart agencies on the brand account, are going to be more attractive to brands than those that take a more silo’d approach. We already see this happening. Some will do it well. Some not so much. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that score.

Social media expertise will continue to shift in-house. It has to. To navigate the organizational boundaries, foster cross-functional and inter-departmental cooperation at the level required, the person responsible for social media engagement has to have the internal knowledge and ties that only a full-time, bottom-line driven employee can. And once social media moves in-house it will have multiple flavors. The best description of what this may turn out to look like is from Jeremiah Owyang of the Altimeter Group in his piece on the two career paths of the corporate social strategist.

Warning: This integration will not be an easy road. It requires that everyone check their egos (and worries about budget) at the door. This is not easy if you run the PR agency and are worried about the ad agency getting your budget or vice versa. And within the organization, this social media “thing” is still considered a bit “squishy.” Internal champions have to navigate many hurdles, often including not having the budget for social media, just the mandate.

But I just don’t see any other way. The consumer views a product as a whole. We want a consistent experience across our interactions with the brand, whether it be functions (customer service, sales, finance) or marketing (ads, PR, coupons, sampling etc. ). And we expect to have those interactions across multiple channels – mass and micro media, new media and old.

Consumers see us as one “thing.” It’s about time we did as well.

What are you going to do to break down a silo or foster cross functional cooperation in your organization?

__

More reading:

• Which Department Owns Social Media?
• Who Owns Social Media? The best approach is to create a small team of people to provide guidance
• Who owns social media? Again.

The post Who owns social media (redux) first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

In the meantime, my best wishes to you all for a happy new year.

The post Happy New Year first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Under the old rules, promotions required pre-approval, but the only way to get it was to have a designated Facebook rep, and the only way to get one of those was to run $10K of Facebook advertising.

All the other rules remain the same, so you still cannot use status updates as a method of entry  or automatically enter someone for becoming a fan.

The post Update on Facebook contest rules first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The key to success in social media engagement is to forge strong relationships, deliver relevant content and most importantly, respect the writer and her readers. As a starting point for developing long term sustainable relationships between brands and social media influencers, here are some best practices for your consideration.

Focus on the people, not on your product. Pay it forward — give first, get second.

Effective influencer engagement starts with reaching out to people who will have a genuine and authentic interest in a company or product. That interest is what inspires them to create a story that connects with their (and their readers’) passions. That it also mentions a product or service in some context is only a part of the story; Not all the story nor simply a tack-on mention at the end. For a conversation to be effective for both the brand and the bloggers, the inclusion of the brand has to fit (much like Cinderella’s slipper), not be forced.

Social media leaders should be compensated for their efforts on behalf of brands, and the value should be balanced, with each party obtaining sufficient benefit. In other words, if the product the brand is offering the blogger is a car for a significant period of time, the blogger might consider that  sufficient compensation — depending on what the brand is asking in exchange. A few boxes of cereal or tubes of hand cream? Not so much.

Brands are best served by a “clean, well-lighted” space, in which editorial is clearly distinguished from advertorial content, and brand-influencer relationships disclosed.  There is no such thing as too much information, too much disclosure in the blogosphere. The FTC imposes requirements on brands and bloggers for both disclosure and accuracy, but those are simply the price of admission. Long-lasting trust demands even more than a simple disclosure statement. To gain, and retain, trust, brands, influencers and communities need to be upfront about their point of view as well as their relationships with other parties. It’s the only way the consumer has all the information she needs to evaluate whether the opinion in a blog post is from a peer, and thus relevant to her life. Or simply an endorsement from an interested party or an advertisement. Both have value in the awareness/adoption process just a different one.

Every conversation has multiple stakeholders – the influencers, the brands and the readers, and you have to keep all three in mind when creating a campaign. Is the content relevant to the readers’ interests? Is it interesting? How authentically does it integrate the messaging into the  story without appearing forced or fake? What will the reader experience be? Develop programs that will be interesting for the social media influencers and their audiences – wherever they engage with her — not just an opportunity to get paid for a post, and that support the brand messaging, without being a product pitch.

A sponsored conversation can be just as engaging as a straight-up editorial post, update or Tweet, provided that the topic taps into the woman’s passions, not the product press release.

Less is often more. Reaching out to fewer influencers, but ones that have a genuine interest and desire to support the brand is usually more effective than a larger number of mildly interested folks. A few really good posts by influential women who are leaders in a community can have a stronger, more positive impact than a slew of perfunctory posts. It’s also important to consider how many influencers should be included in a program; a fatigue often sets in when multiple posts about the same thing all appear on the same day. Intended to have a positive impact, such volume actually can have negative impact on a community.

“Keep your friends close. And your enemies closer.” Embrace your critics instead of trying to silence them. This is a tough strategy to follow; it’s hard to invite your critics to take a seat at the table, especially when you know there are hundreds of fans who would be happy to have that seat.

Own your words. When you make a mistake, ‘fess up and apologize. A little humility goes a long way. Bottom line: nothing spreads faster than bad news. If you don’t do social media engagement right, you will face criticism. Better to do it right the first time!

—

Cleaning out the inbox:

• Check out  Blog Marketing to Moms Is About More Than Parenting, an eMarketer study about the momosphere. Full disclosure: I was interviewed for the piece.
• On December 9th, I’ll be speaking at the Massachusetts Conference for Women at the Boston Convention Center. I’ll be doing a session on using social media to build your brand and professional reputation.  The session was originally framed as an intro-level session, but feedback from the previous two conferences — in Pittsburgh and Houston — has confirmed that the audience wants more advanced content, so in Boston, I’ll be adding content on building a blog strategy. I’ll also be signing Professional Blogging For Dummies in the bookstore.

The post Best practices for influencer engagement first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Thinking about that milestone over this holiday weekend led me to think about some of the changes I’ve observed in the blogosphere.

In 2005,  early adopters were dipping their toes into the blogging waters. The hot topic was the corporate blog, and the term “social media”  wasn’t even being used yet — Facebook was in its infancy and Twitter wouldn’t even be invented for another year. Public relations agencies were just beginning to reach out to bloggers on behalf of brands, mostly high tech and consumer electronics. Online conversation often swirled around the mistakes agencies and companies made with poorly targeted “spray and pray” outreach.

Now, according to research conducted by the Center for Marketing Research at UMass Dartmouth,  23 percent of the Fortune 500 have public blogs, including four of the top five corporations (Wal-Mart, Exxon, Chevron and General Electric), 60 percent have corporate Twitter accounts and 56 percent have Facebook pages (The Fortune 500 and Social Media: A Longitudinal Study of Blogging and Twitter Usage by America’s Largest Companies).

The study, which was announced at the Annual Research Symposium and Awards  Gala of the Society for New Communications Research, concludes:

“This [adoption of social media] clearly demonstrates the growing importance of social media in the business world. These large and leading companies drive the American economy and to a large extent the world economy. Their willingness to interact more transparently via these new technologies with their stakeholders is [a] clear. It will be interesting to watch as they expand their adoption of social media tools and connect with their constituents in dramatically new ways.”

Furthermore, according to research conducted by FedEx and Ketchum, and reported in eMarketer, 75 percent of companies worldwide participate in social media in some aspects of their communications and marketing strategy, with 10% actively leading in the space and 15% still mostly on the sidelines observing (Leveraging Best Practices for Social Media).

Another hot topic in the early days of this blog was whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would accept blogs as an outlet for material disclosure by public companies.  The SEC began studying the issue in late 2006 and in 2008, announced that it would accept websites and blogs as outlets for material disclosure under certain circumstances.

The topic that has engaged me the most since I dove into the social media pool, however, is the relationship between brands and consumers. Initially, this activity was called blogger relations, a name that reflected its roots in public relations and a focus on blogs. Over the past year or two, the term blogger outreach became more prominent — in part I think in an effort to distance the work from public relations. At least that was my reason for the vocabulary shift.

The sphere of activity also has extended beyond blogs to embrace social networks like Facebook and microblogs like Twitter and Tumblr, and influence is just as important as blog real estate, prompting a shift to talk about  “social media influencers” rather than just bloggers.

Going into the new year, I will be shifting my analysis of this topic to focus on influencer engagement. How well do we engage influencers across the range of social media channels? What can brands do to better engage the customer with the brand premise while retaining authenticity? What is the role of the influencer herself? What can she do to engage proactively with the brands she loves without “selling out?”

Bottom line, I am more interested in the two-way sustainable engagement, brand to influencer and influencer to brand, than I am in a one-way outreach or a single campaign.

Next week, I’ll kick this off with a brief summary of  some best practices for influencer engagement.

The post Six years of blogging – perspectives on social media first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

—

Marketing is a process that combines art and science. The more grounded your art is in your science, the more repeatable the process and the more successful you will be. The marketing plan also relies on many different inputs — including the expertise and experience of all the members of the team, past results, market research, data from the field and customer feedback. You can’t develop a marketing plan without the data and the team contributions.

Budget and timing are also factors.  When it comes to marketing tactics, there’s fast, cheap and everything in between. Typically, the most cost effective tactics take time to build before bearing fruit,  and when the situation demands fast results, it usually comes with a higher price tag.

To answer the question, What would you do?, you need to start with some more questions.

• Who is the customer? How many of them are there in market?
• What is the product she needs/wants? How well does the product we have match up to what she wants? This helps us understand market potential of a segment. We’re looking for the best fit with the largest possible number of customers. A perfect fit for a very small number of consumers is not sustainable, unless you’ve got a luxury product with high price tag and great margins.
• What is the emotional driver for the purchase? How can we find a way to differentiate our product based on a dimension that matters to the customer? This is especially critical when you are trying to expand into a new market segment. You may have a very clear understanding of how your product fits the emotional needs of the your initial  customer segment, but no clear idea of how to appeal to a new group, even though you understand that there is an appeal.

For example, take end user security software like anti-virus and spam filtering. For the core customer of these products —  the 25-50 year old technology enthusiast  — the emotional purchase drivers are met by feeds, speeds and features.  He knows he needs security software for his PC  and can be swayed by product excellence, even at a higher price, because being the smartest guy with the best product satisfies an emotional need.

However, if a product is perceived as a commodity, the consumer is likely to be very price sensitive. That one product is better than the others won’t matter as much, unless it also happens to be the cheaper one.

Other segments, like retirees or moms, are less interested in the technical aspects of these products. They need to understand the benefits to them  AND that it won’t be difficult or expensive to obtain the benefits. Their emotional satisfaction in computer use does not come intrinsically from the computer and its operation. They use the computer to do something, and it is in the “something” that we find the emotional driver upon which to base messaging.

• Where and how does she buy? Who does she trust when making a purchasing decision? We know referral is the best advertising. What referrals matter to this customer? Consumer electronics sales people ( a la Best Buy)? Friends and neighbors? How does this customer weigh testimonials from experts versus “people like me.”

This approach is a customer-centric marketing approach. You’ve got to put the process in place to find out what motivates and excites the target population, and then use this learning in marketing strategy and product development.

Once you have process in place, it is duplicable market to market. You still need creative ideas and the flash of intuition that reveals the killer idea for a specific marketing campaign, but you can’t get to those without the base.

The customer-centered approach is the first leg on the marketing “stool.” The other two are the power of personal testimony and listening posts.

The Power of Personal Testimony

Product messaging should always be grounded in customer experiences, but from their frame of reference, not the product. Consumer product goods companies understand this. In their mass market advertising anyway. No one tugs at the heartstrings better. A brand of laundry soap gets your clothes cleaner, but what it REALLY does is make you happy. Technology companies have a harder time understanding that it’s not the product that matters. It’s what the product lets us do, feel, understand etc.

And when I say customer experiences, I mean the real customers, not the hypothetical customers created in ad and PR agency conference rooms. The consumer has many ways to make her voice heard, from traditional customer service channels in your company to online reviews, social networks and blogging.

Tap into the real personal testimony.

For example, back to our spam filter example. Instead of advertisements in which the consumer thanks the computer security company  for protecting her computer, have her talk about how her life is easier/better now that she has the freedom to shop online and let her kids use the Internet without worrying about viruses, stalkers and identity theft.

Brand evangelist programs and user-generated content (especially video) are another effective way to tap into the power of personal testimony.

Of course in order to really tap into your customers as endorsers, you have to be listening to them.

Getting Your Listening Ears On: Establish online listening posts

You need an active online listening program to understand what is being said about your brand and the overall category online. Capturing online reviews, and feedback from customer service and your sales channels only scratches the surface. These channels capture the folks who really like you or really hate you.

A company needs to grasp the  “muddle in the middle” — what average folks say about a company, competitors and the product category in online forums other than the company’s own.  What they say about their lives and needs even when they do not mention products at all.

This acts as an online focus group and gives valuable  visibility into what the consumer really cares about.  This information can then be used to develop marketing programs, customer service offerings and new products.

Does active listening replace the need for things like focus groups and market research? Of course not. Traditional methods still offer tremendous value to the marketing task, particularly when it comes to measurement. Monitoring is largely dependent on the organic conversation. We’re just eavesdropping. To find out whether we’ve been successful with our programs, we need to ask specific questions, and the old research stand-bys are very relevant to that task.

If you don’t listen? It’s like a child sticking his fingers in his ears. You may not look as ridiculous but it’s just as stupid. And ultimately ineffective.

The post Customer-centric marketing, the power of personal testimony and getting your listening ears on first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Quite simply, it reminded me why I love what I do for a living.

The 500 or so  women in the audience were very engaged.  I had about 6 or 8 questions at the end, and I’m sure there would have been more had I not gotten “the hook” from my timekeeper, because  I was mobbed at the podium at the end. The best part was afterward, though, when folks stopped me in the exhibit hall or came to my book signing to talk more about the topic or get my advice on a more personal level.

And my book! I don’t know how many copies of Professional Blogging For Dummies the conference bookstore had on hand, but I do know that the Pennsylvania ladies wiped it out. My book was sold out by 2pm.

What do I do for a living?  I help:

• connect brands and bloggers in win-win relationships
• companies integrate social media into their marketing and customer service strategy
• people find their social media and blogging sweet spot through my book and workshops

But really, what I do is help people and brands tell their stories. And so many of the women at the conference had wonderful stories to tell. I truly hope they start blogs because I want to  hear from and about them.

That’s why the very best thing was the thank-you note I got on Facebook today from someone who attended my session and bought the book. She wrote that I inspired her to get moving on her business and a blog.

That makes all the difference.

Because I know that I made a difference.

I love what I do.

—

If you are in Houston or Boston, don’t miss the upcoming conferences in these states. I’ll be doing the social media workshop at both, and look forward to meeting you there. In fact, I am giving away a pass to each. All you have to do is leave a comment on my September 25th post for your chance to win.

Good friend Morra Aarons-Mele’s company Women Online is a sponsor of the conferences, in good company with firms like Citizens Bank and State Farm Insurance.

The post How the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference For Women reminded me why I love what I do for a living first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I haven’t written about the FTC endorsement guidelines in quite a while but some things have crossed the transom over the past month that I wanted to share with you.

First, the FTC announced the resolution of its first completed investigation in which the social media aspects of the guidelines applied – Reverb.

Short story: Reverb was accused of “astroturfing” — employees of the PR firm left glowing comments on video game message boards as though they were satisfied customers of products. No fines were assessed, but the consent decree imposes some pretty stringent requirements on the firm and its principal. Read the consent decree for the details.

Two important things about Reverb:

• The deceptive advertising laws existed – and applied to online and social media – well before the revised guidelines were issued last year. Deceptive advertising is deceptive advertising, full stop. The revised guidelines help us – advertisers and consumers – understand how the FTC intends to enforce the law. The guidelines were and are not targeted specifically at blogs.
• The FTC focused on the company and its principal, not the individuals hired to leave the comments. It was the agency providing the direction that was held accountable for the deception. This is consistent with the agency’s statements that it intends to focus on advertisers, not on individual bloggers participating in social media campaigns.

In other FTC news: the agency is going to turn its attention to Green claims. Not surprising given the greenwashing of the past few years. According to Ad Age:

“The guides are expected to tighten standards for packaging claims such as “recyclable” or “biodegradable”; regulate how marketers use such terms as “carbon neutral”; and how quickly and close to the source of carbon output “carbon offsets” must be executed, among other things.”

Another term expected to come in for scrutiny is “sustainability.”

This reminds me of the organic/natural debate. Organic is specific. Products need to comply with very specific requirements to be labeled organic. Natural on the other hand has relatively little meaning, and certainly doesn’t mean something is “good for you.” There are many things in nature that are most definitely not good for humans to breathe or consume. Carbon monoxide. Tobacco. Poison.  You get the idea.

And on Monday, I read an item in Ad Week about the major US advertising associations collaborating on a mechanism for consumers to opt-out of online ads that use behavioral targeting. A move designed to forestall formal FTC action on the issue.

According to Ad Week

“Ads targeted using past Internet browsing history will carry the small logo. Clicking it will bring notice of the targeting used and direct people to a page with options for blocking behavioral targeting.”

Behavioral targeting increases the relevance of the ads to a viewer’s interests, and in that respect, benefits both marketers and consumers. On the other hand, there are legitimate privacy concerns. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  What do you think?

Update 8 October: The FTC released the proposed new green guidelines on the 6th. The public comment period ends December 10th. The agency also forestalled the game of  “social media telephone” like the one that occurred last year about the endorsement guidelines (there was more misinformation and disinformation circulating at one point than actual information) by releasing a nice summary PDF of the proposed changes.

The post FTC Update: Reverb, Green and Behavioral Targeting first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I was at the conference to present two workshops on Connecting and Communicating with Social Media as part of Kaplan University’s educational track within the conference. The room was full both times – about 280 capacity – even though the room was as far from the front door as you could possibly get and on Saturday it was one of the last sessions, competing with all the entertainment Orlando offers.

It’s impossible to introduce folks to “everything” social media has to offer in an hour session, so I focus largely on blogs and Facebook. Even then, people – especially in beginner audiences – tend to have very specific “how do I do this…” questions, and there is no way to get to all of them. That’s why I am particularly glad that as part of its deliverables for the AARP attendees, Kaplan has created reinventyourself.kaplan.edu, a site dedicated to expanding on the topics presented at the conference with self-paced in-depth courses on each topic. The site launches October 7. I’ll add a link here once it is live.

I helped develop a course based on my workshop, and got a sneak peek Saturday. The online course developers did a great job translating my concepts to the online interactive format. It is a great start for anyone dipping their toe into social media for the first time, at any age. It’s also free!

Of course, if you want to delve more deeply into blogging, and especially making money on your blog, my book Professional Blogging For Dummies is also a good choice! Links in the sidebar to your online bookseller of choice.

The workshops I am doing for the Conferences for Women in Pittsburgh, Houston and Boston use a similar outline, with a slight shift on focus to women and how these tools can help them personally and professionally. I’m giving away tickets to Houston and Boston; all you have to do is leave a comment on my post Using Social Media to Build Your Brand for a chance to win.

For more on technology use by older Americans, check out this post on the AARP blog ShAARP. I was honored that they included the story about my mom that I use in my workshops to make two important points about technology and the Internet. First, there is no age requirement or limit. Second,  don’t think – or let anyone tell you, that you can’t do something. We learn how to do the things that let us accomplish our goals. Even if it seems – or even is – hard.

The post AARP and social media – my trip to the AARP Orlando@50+ Conference first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

I’m really looking forward to speaking at the upcoming Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference for Women (10/14), the Texas Conference for Women (11/10) and the Massachusetts Conference for Women (12/9).

At each conference, I’ll be teaching a workshop on Using Social Media to Build Your Brand. Here’s the abstract:

In this tough economy, it’s more important than ever to develop a brand and set yourself apart from the rest of the masses. Whether you have a job and are looking to advance, in the midst of a job search or working to build a business, social media provides the skills, network and energy to create a serious career advantage. This interactive workshop will explore ways to master social media to help create and reinvent your brand, reputation and thought leadership. Attendees will learn how to utilize social media to:

• Establish access to new networks
• Leverage Facebook and Twitter as a practical professional tool
• Create a blog to align with and help you achieve your short-and-long-term professional goals
• Break into new industries, professions and business opportunities

I’ll be arriving in each town the day before the conference and generally taking off sometime in the late afternoon of the conference, but would love to connect with as many folks as I can while I am in town. If you are planning to attend one of the conferences, or just live locally, please email or dm me and let’s see if we can’t get a meet-up/tweet-up going the night before the conference.

The exception to this is Boston. While I hope to have a home base in Connecticut by then, we’ll still be living in Mass. as well. The plan is to see the calendar year out here, and then transfer my son to his new school after the December break. So I won’t be scramming after the Boston conference with quite the same speed!

I’ve already given away my pass to the Pennsylvania Conference,  but I have a pass to give away to each of the other two conferences as well. All you have to do is leave a comment on this post. Be sure to let me know which conference you’d like to attend, Texas or Mass. I’ll use a random number generator to pick the winning comments. The first comment number generated will get the pass for her conference of choice, and then I will generate numbers until I get a comment for the other conference. Please post your comment by midnight EST Sunday October 17, 2010. I’ll pick the winners early the following week.

Also, if you have a copy of Professional Blogging For Dummies and you’d like me to sign it, please feel free to bring it with you. I always have time for that!

Update 8 October: I will be doing book signings at the Conferences for Women bookstore so if you don’t have a copy yet, you will be able to buy one there.

The post Using Social Media to Build Your Brand – my topic at the upcoming Conferences For Women in Pittsburgh, Houston and Boston first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

Recently I was interviewed by Chief Marketer about how brands are reaching out to women through social media. The reporter was interested in how brands were and were not “getting it right.”

As I wrote here last month (OMG, that long), it’s become increasingly clear to me that the brands that are doing excellent work using social media tools to reach their customers generally have done and do a good job in traditional media. Sure, even the best companies make the occasional mistake with a campaign, product or program but for the most part, their marketing communications are sharp (often clever) and do not patronize the consumer.

These companies already understand that it’s important to respect your customer. In all that you do. They just have to figure out how to translate that imperative using the social media toolset in a way that is authentic to the brand and relevant to the customer.

It’s more than just getting the mechanics right. That’s the price of entry into social media engagement with your customer. I’ve been saying it for years, and I’ll keep on saying it: there is NO excuse for misaddressed e-mail – for example, the “Dear XXX” pitch about toys (children’s toys) that many parent bloggers got last week – or grammar errors – like “conscious” for “conscience,” also from last week’s in-box.

As Marketing Mommy said on Twitter:

@sgetgood My reply to him: “Despite my efforts to break into the porn star business, I’ve yet to use the moniker XXX.”

The poor interns come in for a lot of flack when we talk about these often humorous mechanical mistakes, but really, it is management’s job to create a system with the proper checks and balances.

If you MUST mass e-mail bloggers (and I wish you wouldn’t), invest in a decent CRM system and assign your interns to getting the data entered properly. Not on cutting and pasting pitches. Buy everyone who drafts, edits or sends customer facing emails a dictionary and make it a requirement that it be displayed on their desks. Why? Because it will be a constant visual reminder to check not just the spelling of words, but their meaning. Spell check and online dictionaries can’t do that.

The mechanics are the first, most basic level of getting blogger outreach right. We can do it. I know we can.

Your message is the second, more important level of “getting it right.” My favorite fantasy is that next year, even more companies and their agencies will see the light and understand that what they should be doing is sharing compelling ideas and stories with their customers. Exciting things that will make them want to write about the brand.

Instead of trotting out formulaic pitches and recycling the same product launch templates from project to project, client to client, brand to brand.

Be careful though.This requires more than just identifying the blogger’s passion that drives interest in your product and inserting the message point in an otherwise bland pitch. That’s a start (I guess), but it’s not enough. There is honestly still far too much of this sort of pitch circulating in the ether.

Really getting it right requires that you connect with that passion. To do that, you need to know the bloggers you are reaching out to. It still comes back to the 3 R’s as coined by good friend and colleague David Wescott in 2007 – respect your customer, be relevant and build a relationship over time.

Good blogger relations is  still (and always will be) a commitment, not a one night stand.

—

Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference for Women ticket giveaway – Stay tuned: I will pick a winner this weekend from the comments on this post. I also have one ticket each for the Texas Conference for Women in November and the Massachusetts Conference for Women in December. Watch for a post next week about the conferences and details on how I plan to give away those passes. More than likely it will be on Twitter, not here on the blog as finding time to write is a bit problematic for the next two weeks due to my schedule.

Next week, I will be in NYC most of the week, digging in to my second week on the job as VP Sales Marketing for BlogHer and speaking at a PRSA event on Friday. The following week, I travel to Orlando to present a social media workshop at AARP’s Orlando@50+ conference.

In between all of that we are trying to find a place to live for 3 people, 3 dogs and 2 cats. Fun times!  We need a rental within about an hour’s commute to Manhattan by train until we sell our house in Massachusetts. If you’ve got leads, let me know. We’re leaning toward western Connecticut but open to all suggestions.

The post Two levels of getting it right with blogger relations first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.

The comments, both here and on Facebook, on the previous marketing lessons posts have been terrific and chock full of examples, some of which we should strive to emulate, and others that we definitely want to avoid.

In this post I’m going to share my three picks for official sponsor companies that got it right at BlogHer ’10. These are by no means the only ones that did, but I have some specific learning points in each example.

Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project

I’ve been aware of the Responsibility Project since they reached out to me just before last year’s BlogHer. I don’t get many pitches and respond to even fewer but given my interest in ethics, disclosure and responsible blogging, I’m a good fit for their message of  “do the right thing” and have written about the Project a few times over the past year. I was delighted when I received an invitation to its outing to Ellis Island the day before BlogHer. I’ve been to New York many times, and seen most of the main tourist attractions, but never Ellis Island. So I RSVP’d yes, and made my initial travel plans to get to NY that morning in time to join the trip.  (BTW in the end, my plans changed and I went to NY on the Tuesday to film a roundtable discussion on celebrity worship, also for the Responsibility Project.) The Ellis Island trip was terrific as a sightseeing excursion and I highly recommend it. Details for organizing your own visit are on SCR.

Here’s why it worked as a blogger event.

Unique – The Ellis Island venue was a nice change from the usual meet & greet cocktail party/luncheon accompanied by swag bag that we’ve come to expect from blogger events. It also fit well with the theme of responsibility, although I admit that I nearly laughed out loud in the brief luncheon presentation by Peg Zitko, VP of Public Affairs at The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation when she tied the concept of responsibility to President Reagan’s decision that the American people should be responsible for restoring the Statue and Ellis Island through private donation rather than federal subsidy. Nothing against her message about the importance of the public contributions to the restoration — that’s an important story —  but responsible is not exactly how I would describe Reagan’s policies. Oh well, never mind…

The group was small, about 30 women. This made it easy to mingle and chat, and actually get to know each other. Liberty Mutual PR agency Ketchum told me they invited bloggers who they have been working with already, like me, and others who they wanted to get to know better because they thought the Responsibility Project themes would resonate for them.

Here are posts from:

• As Cape Cod Turns
• Sugar My Bowl.com
• DanielleLiss.com
• Quirky Fusion
• Photos from 5 Minutes for Mom

The swag bag was appropriate and thoughtful — sunscreen, lipblock, bottled water, some snacks and an autographed copy of the Ellis Island cookbook written by our tour guide Tom Bernardin.

Limited lecturing – Because the trip was sightseeing, it seemed likely that the company presentations would be brief so we could enjoy the venue. They were. Senior Vice President, Communications Paul Alexander greeted us after we boarded the bus at the Hilton, said a few words and showed a brief film of clips from Responsibility Project commercials and media coverage. At lunch, we were treated to the afore mentioned brief talk from Peg Zitko and a screening of Second Line, a short film directed by and starring Danny Glover. That’s about it. Instead of bombarding us with presentations (or crafts) the Liberty Mutual and Ketchum people mingled and enjoyed the trip with us.

Executive commitment –– Major kudos to Paul Alexander who joined us for the whole trip, and managed to still look cool and crisp in his suit and tie at the end of the day, when we all looked a bit frazzled and fried. This is the kind of commitment from company executives that bloggers want to see. Not a few words and a hand wave as he or she is escorted from the room, and on to presumably more important things. I was most impressed by this, although perhaps I should have expected it. It is after all the right thing to do, and I have come to believe that Liberty Mutual walks its talk.

Procter & Gamble

I didn’t spend much time on the Expo floor. In my early career, one of my duties was tradeshow coordinator and I spent my fair share of time setting up, working and dismantling trade show booths of all sizes. As a result, I have a love-hate relationship with trade shows. I love the customer contact and the energy when you have a great conversation with a prospect or a reporter. However, the very venue reminds me of endless hours manning show booths or waiting for freight to be delivered etc etc. As a result, unless there is something I am specifically interested in, I tend to cruise through as fast as possible. In the case of cleaning products and groceries, my family will tell you straight up that I am not the buyer so I also don’t want to waste the booth staff’s time chatting with me.

However, I was impressed by the sheer size of the P&G booth, and heard many good things about it from folks who spent some time with the P&G reps. Even if all you did was walk by, you got the idea the P&G had made a serious commitment to BlogHer.

Other things P&G did right:  In addition to the show floor, it had suite space for its new brand Align. The reflexology massage was awesome! More importantly, though, it was paying attention before BlogHer. As I’ve mentioned previously, it offered (and I accepted) free samples of Align for the attendees at the pre BlogHer BBQ. That gives the brand some mindshare even before people get to the conference. Given the noise and competition for attention once BlogHer starts, this is smart marketing.

Pepsi

Pepsi had a lot of things going on during BlogHer but I’m going to single out one, because I think it is very important, not just as a marketing lesson, but as an example for anyone interested in gender equality. Or parity if you prefer.

It is a well known fact that there are not enough women elected officials in this country. Not enough women run, and of those who do, not enough win. The day before the main conference, BlogHer partnered with the White House Project to hold a workshop for women interested in running for office. NY York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also held a brief meeting with political and NY bloggers during the conference to focus attention on women as candidates.

However, I believe our political reality won’t change, or change enough, until the business world changes. Until more women are in positions of business power and choose to use those powers for good. To make change in the world. And to support women candidates.

Pepsi, helmed by a woman, CEO Indra Nui,  seems to be doing just that. The company took the opportunity at BlogHer to showcase some of its senior executive women. It brought a panel of senior executive women to BlogHer for a “Sofa Summit” moderated by Campbell Brown to talk about Pepsi’s forays into social media, being a senior executive, nutrition and yes, even their families. I was privileged to be invited to this breakfast session attended by about 30 women bloggers, many (but not all) of whom write about gender issues.

This is important — to see  women in senior executive positions at top brands.We need more of it.

Now you may have noticed that I didnt include any of the entertainment brands in my picks. Does that mean I don’t think Ubisoft got it right with Let’s Dance 2? Of course not. The dance-offs in the booth were brilliant, and many many bloggers tremendously enjoyed this booth. It’s also a slam dunk. Nothing in marketing is ever easy, but it is a lot easier to come up with fun ways for customers to engage with entertainment brands. Fun is already the point.

It’s a whole lot harder to make insurance, soap and soda sexy. That’s why Liberty Mutual, P&G and Pepsi are my top picks.

Unrelated to BlogHer specifically, but apropos of brands getting social media engagement with their customers “right,” brands that have a track record of positive engagement with customers in other venues tend to hit more than they miss when deploying social media tools. They aren’t perfect — no one is — but they already seem to understand the importance of connecting with customers over shared values, not simply products.

—

On October 14, I will be speaking at the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference for Women in Pittsburgh on using social media to build your brand and advance your career. Early registration price is $135 and expires Sept. 1oth. But… courtesy of the conference organizers, I have a pass to give away . Just leave a comment on this post by noon eastern time on September 14th. I’ll use a random number generator to pick a winner.

—

Disclosure: Liberty Mutual hosted us for the day, providing transportation to/from Battery Park and the Hilton, the ferry ticket and guided tour of Ellis Island and lunch, plus the afore mentioned swag bag. I also participated in the celebrity worship roundtable; my extra hotel costs for Tuesday and Wednesday nights were covered and the participants received a small honorarium for our participation. I attended Pepsi’s Sofa Summit breakfast on Saturday. P&G sent samples of Align for the attendees of the Boston pre-BlogHer BBQ at my house, and like many attendees, I received a reflexology massage at its BlogHer suite.

The post Brands & companies getting it right at BlogHer ’10: Liberty Mutual, Pepsi, P&G (BlogHer Marketing Lessons part 5) first appeared on Marketing Roadmaps.