Google is not omnipotent.  Nor is it invulnerable, invincible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-conquering for everything.  The hottest company and brand on the planet is still subject to the laws of business, marketing and the marketplace (4000+ PhD's or whatever aside). 

Exhibit A: July 16's announcement that Google is discontinuing the Nexus One, it's Google-branded smartphone.  You probably didn't hear much about that announcement (unless you follow ReadWriteWeb or Mashable).  If you give me just a marketing minute of your time, I'll offer you some reasons why Nexus One is now Nexus Gone, as well as why this might have been a brilliant piece of strategy for Google.

WHY YOU DIDN'T HEAR MUCH ABOUT THIS
For those who have taken Marketing 101 or have a modicum of common sense, this part is pretty easy.

 Flops don't get big press releases - While Nexus One may not have been a "flop" per se, given Google's track record and the hype at the announcement of its launch, it's hardly a success.  And, when was the last time you read a press release from a company announcing it was discontinuing a product that it had ballyhooed just a few months earlier?  That's hardly a typical marketing and PR strategy.  So, it's no surprise that Google sort of "ahem-ed" this one over to the side.

People don't care - We've become a "hype society," capable of only paying attention to the Big Bang, the Big Story, the hottest and latest news.  If it's a big launch, we hear about it.  Big problems get big headlines (and rightly so).  But there's an apparent shift in our DNA that has debillitated our ability to stick with a story, a cause, an issue, etc. for more than a short period of time. 

As a story gets smaller or drags out over time, people don't pay as much attention.  Examples include Hurricane Katrina and the devastation in New Orleans (sad to say it's still a problem, but most of us aren't tuned into the city's continuing plight), Sarah Palin and the Jonas Brothers. There are notable exceptions, e.g.,the OJ Simpson Trial , but those exceptions prove the principal (although you can bet BP is hoping it won't be such an exception).  It's almost an iron-clad law in the world of technology.

 

Ever hear of the 80/20 rule?  You know, the principal that says that 20% of the people/projects/etc. contribute 80% of the output/progress/etc.  Well, that rule doesn’t apply when it comes to social influencers.  

Jackie Huba's keynote presented an interesting case for what I’d call th “1/99 Rule” at last week’s NewComm Forum 2010.  Her findings: only 1% of visitors to sites (social or otherwise) actually create the content that the rest of the universe views (that’s where the 99 comes from). 

Interesting stat.  But, what does this mean for Marketers?  Well, if you’ll give me just a marketing minute, I’ll tell you.

Sharpen Your Pencils…and Your Marketing

One thing I find interesting is that this is not so much a radical shift in focus as a sharpening of focus (okay, maybe a big sharpening, but a sharpening nonetheless).  And, it backs up one of the key strategies in social marketing: identify and energize the people who will spread the word on your Brand’s behalf. 

This perspective also runs counter to a commonly held view that the social web has established a “citizen journalism” where anyone can create and publish content.  In theory, this would create an “equal” playing field.  In fact, this 1/99 Rue demonstrates an “inequality,” rather than an “equality.”  When it comes to real influence, these “One-Percenters” are truly inordinate influencers in today’s world. 

And that, my friends, is the kind of leverage point smart marketers should be seeking.

News You Can Use

Jackie provided some straight-forward advice for marketers seeking to act on this set of insights.  The high level objective in this new arena: seek to create a customer who in turn creates another customer(s) for your Brand. 

Boiled down to blog length, here are 4 Tips Marketers should apply to achieve that goal:

1. People ARE the Message - It’s not so much about getting your Message to the People, it’s about recognizing that People ARE the Message.  For any brand, the key audience are those One Percenters, the people who are actually creating content.  Find/attract them and you have taken your first step toward your end objective.
2. Give People Something to Join – Human beings are social animals (and not just online).  We like to participate and share experiences with others who share our interests. One Percenters will readily “join” a Brand, a cause, a community if you provide them with something they can love.  Doing so helps to create “ambassadors” for your Brand, like Maker’s Mark did when they established their Ambassador Program
3. Participation is the 5^th P – The One Percenters are not only the people who create the content, they are the people who SHARE the content that they find.  They actively participate in the conversations and discussions regarding a Brand, Cause or whatever their interest.  So, smart marketers will give these folks things that they can share with the broader community and keep them participating.  This does not mean coupon drops via Twitter; it’s about providing information and content of interest to the community.  In Jackie’s words: “Give first, and you’ll receive later.” Translation: Don’t be a self-centered, commercial glutton who demands instantaneous gratification; you need to be patient, take a long-term view and serve your community’s needs first…you’ll get your ROI over time (if you can wait more than a week…if not, then this may not be a path for you).
4. Build a Culture of Loyalty – One key to help propagate and build your community of ambassadors and fans is to provide “insider cues” that the community will adopt and share.  It’s these “shared cues” that helps reinforce the feelings of community and belonging that increases a sense of loyalty.  Jackie cited Lady GaGa’s social marketing activities as an example.  The diva phenom provides lots of content for her fans to talk about, capture and share (be it Flip videos of her concerts that allows millions to share the concert experience, her tweets of the “little monsters” tattoo she added to acknowledge her adoring fans or the “clawed hand” symbol that her fans have adopted as a shared symbol). 

Some of you out there may be reading this and saying: “Um, we’ve heard this before.  This doesn’t sound new to me.”  And, I’d agree with you in some ways.  Jackie has outlined some fundamental principals that have been articulated in other ways, so I concede it’s not radical “new news” (although I like her take on the One Percenters and her very practical advice).

However, two things DO strike me as noteworthy.

1. It’s not always about numbers – Sorry analytics mavens, but to be successful in this arena you need more than a spreadsheet full of metricsI.  When it comes to identifying and attracting the One Percenters, it takes a deft creative hand/mind to conceive the ideas that engage and encourage participation and sharing.  There’s no algorithm for creativity or consumer insights that leads to moves like GaGa.   It’s better to think like a sociologist or psychologist than a mathematician when it comes to creating these shared symbols and experiences.  (And THEN you can start to analyze what’s working and what’s not)
2. If it’s so obvious, they why aren’t you doing it? – The truth is that there IS a small group who does really understand this arena and are practicing these principles.  But, not everyone or every company/organization falls into this category (in fact, most don’t).  So, if you already “get it” and are walking the talk, I salute you!  And, if not, I hope that the above gives you some news YOU can use in your efforts to create more customers who are loyal, engaged and connected to your Brand.

I’m a member of MENG (Marketing Executive Networking Group), and I felt I represented the membership in many ways at this event, exchanging ideas with thought leaders in the emerging and ever-evolving world of social tools, technologies, marketing and media.  I’ll be sharing other insights I gleaned from NewComm Forum 2010 in days to come.

But, my minute is now up.  It’s your turn…what do YOU think?

“Social Media” is wrong.  There, I said it.  Now, if you’ll kindly give me just a marketing minute, I’ll tell you why.

 

I was reading a thought provoking post by Eric Flethcher, ”Conversations, Relationships and Renaming Social Media,” over on The Social CMO (excellent blog – I highly recommend it) that got me thinking about this.  Eric raises many good points in his article regarding some barriers to companies accepting/embracing social media - corporate fear of losing control, executive fear of engaging in a “conversation” (being “forced” in this direction), etc. 

 

Eric does a nice job of reframing the issue, and the opportunity.  One of his final suggestions: come up with a new name for “social media.”  He has his reasons, but this thought resonated with me for a different set of reasons.  Actually, it’s a thought I’ve been struggling with for some time.

  
Misleading and Limiting
"Social Media" as a term is wrong on a number of levels.  Primarily, the term is misleading and limiting – it creates misperceptions, conjures up thoughts that narrow the outlook, potential and application of these new technology tools on behalf of an organization.

 

For most, the word “media” is associated with the communication channels we’ve all grown up with and which continue to sprout up around us.  Per the dictionary, the noun “media” is most commonly defined as "the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely." I think in today's world we can add online, and even some social networks, to that definition.

 

Certainly, one can argue that this IS one way that these new social networks, tools and technologies can function.  They certainly CAN be used as communication and/or promotional conduits for our messages.  No argument with that. 

 "Social" is NOT Just "Media"
But, that’s only one usage and potential application of these powerful tools.

• Is asking the opinion of hundreds or thousands of people in your target community for input or feedback on your new product concept, new flavors, features, etc. really “media?”  IMO, not really – that’s marketing intelligence, real-time feedback, research...not "media."
• Is paying close attention to customer comments and/or complaints on the Internet through the use of sophisticated “listening tools,” then swiftly responding to them really “media?”  Not IMO – that again feels like real time market intelligence with a good overlay of customer service on top.

I could go on, but the main point is this:  “Social” is not just “Media,” at least not in the way that the overwhelming number of people (including business and marketing types) think of it.  It is so much more.

 

What's Wrong With This Picture
This mislabeling can have two (at least!) potentially negative effects:

• It encourages the wrong set of actions – Companies and executives are too quick to only view these tools in the context of a marketing communication channel, and may therefore rush out to stake their claim in this new form of media.  That can lead to what I call SNOS, or “Shiny New Object Syndrome.” It’s not strategic, it’s not integrated or related to the organization’s objectives and it could lead to serious disappointment, wasted time and money...you get the idea.
• It limits strategic application of very powerful tools – Today’s tools have many uses for the savvy business executive and marketer.  From product research to consumer insights to evaluating brand perceptions/saliency to customer service…and, yes, to the more prevalent ways we think of these tools for marketing communications and relationship building.  Right now, many companies are struggling with social because they are only looking at a small portion of how they can utilize these tools (Twitter accounts, Facebook fan pages and promotional activity, etc.).  That’s a tremendous opportunity lost, in my estimation.

One can (and many probably will) argue that all of my above examples are still forms of "media," that it all leads to building better, more productive relationships no matter what an organization does (as long as it is engaged in these conversations and building these relationships).  Some may say we're dancing on the head of a pin here.  I can understand these perspectives; but, I don’t fully agree with them. 

  

 In a world of short attention spans, limited time and a tendency to be reactionary rather than strategic, little things like “names” can be very powerful signals that lead us in one direction or another.  And, I’m of the belief that using the term “social media” is sending the WRONG signals and making it MORE difficult for those who grasp the potential of these tools to make headway in helping their companies fully leverage these potentially powerful technologies.  As much as the old term “Web 2.0” was derided and lacked clarity, it did allow for a broader platform of potential application and uses.

So, I’d like to see another name.  I’ve been using the clunky term “social tools and technologies.” It will not win me any prize for brand naming brilliance, but it more clearly describes what I’m talking about and allows me to focus on the objectives and strategies of an organization and how we might use these tools to further those goals.

What about you?  What would you do if you were to rename “social media?”

"Our Biggest Brands Can No Longer Be Managed By Nerds"

The above headline grabbed me.  Turns out it's a thoughtful Ad Age/CMO Strategy commentary by Tom Hinkes on the state of Brand Management.  It got me thinking, so I had to take just a marketing minute to post and share it with you.  

I highly encourage every marketing professional, from CMO to assistant marketing coordinator, to read this article and think about it.

While the headline may be a bit much and the term "nerds" may offend some, the point is well made – the marketing world is increasingly hiding behind numbers to justify business decisions, rather than using data to inform and stimulate forward thinking and creative solutions.  As the author points out: "More data is not better data."  And, he goes on to paraphrase David Ogilvy by saying: "The result is today's brand manager who...uses data 'the way a drunk man uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.' " (Gotta love that Dave Ogilvy)

Are You Right or Left? - And I Don't Mean Politically
One thing that drew me into this profession was the requirement for right brain/left brain thinking.  Personally, I'm all for appropriate use of data, research, and analysis, and enjoy applying these skills in my job.  Some of my best friends crunch numbers.  I've been known to bask in the glow of a well-designed forecasting model (don't spread that around too much).  And, I insist that we track and measure our marketing program performance so we know if what we are doing is on track, off the track or somewhere in between.

However, I agree with the general thrust of the article that the pendulum can swing too far -- great breakthroughs don't all stem from the left side of the brain.  In fact, it works quite the opposite. 

To be clear: that left side of the brain is absolutely critical.  We need that side, and we feed the left hemisphere of our brain data, information, numbers, statistics, research, etc. until it is full and about to burst.  Then, we let it digest.

That's when the magic begins.  Studies have shown that the subconscious mind takes all this data absorbed by the left and plays with it, turns it over and over, looks at it sideways.  Eventually, insight, inspiration and ideas begin to bubble up over on the right side of the brain.  The proverbial light bulb goes off, the "aha! moment" occurs.  Some call it "vision." 

Balancing the Pendulum
So, both sides are important.  And, neither side is effective completely on its own.  Imagine a world run by exclusive right brain thinkers -- lots of ideas, but little in the way to filter, screen, evaluate, monitor, etc. those ideas.  Feels kind of chaotic, lacking in discipline and focus.

At the same time, when the left brain assumes totalitarian leadership, the results are static, minute, uninspiring, lacking in breakthrough.  Feels pretty boring to me.  It's brand paralysis by analysis.

I believe that great marketers and the best marketing leaders have that right side/left side balance.  They know how to analyze, dig, research, evaluate all sorts of data.  But, they also know how to synthesize, interpret, extrapolate and use that data to create a new vision for their Brand and/or company.  These are the people who lead true innovation, create breakthrough products or methods; these are the folks how are truly game-changers in their fields.  

It doesn't feel to me like there are enough of those people in this world, nor does it feel like those right brain/left brain folks are valued as much as they should be.  It's not easy, it's hard.  It's not safe, it's risky.  It's not immediately measurable, it's intuitive.  It's not tactical, it's very strategic.  But, it's necessary, lest every product we see on a shelf or in a store or online be a line extension of something that already exists. You know how that feels? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

The Great Debate for the Soul of Marketing
To me, this is really a debate over the soul and future of marketing.  (pause for melodramatic effect)  But, it's really not a new debate.  It's really a heightened debate, one fueled by the explosion of technology and tools, and compounded by an economic recession that has scared most people into greater fear and risk aversion than normal.

Whether you agree or disagree, it's hard not to have an opinion.  So, what do you think?  Is this a trend?  Is it good or bad for the future of marketing and business?  Let me know what you think and let's get a conversation going. 

 

Many of us like “shiny new objects.”  You know what I mean -- the latest cool gadget, thingie, possession or hooha to hit the market.  The iPod was such a thing (before it became ubiquitous), like the SONY Walkman before it.  HDTV’s, luxury SUV’s, designer jeans, cappuccino makers…all shiny new objects (some literally!). 

 The business world has “shiny new objects,” too.  Take social media for instance – it’s the business equivalent of the latest “hot, gotta-have” thing.  The problem is, that can be downright lethal in today’s business world.  If you’ll give me just a marketing minute, I’ll explain why.

SNOS - Shiny New Object Syndrome

There’s a disease that I call “SNOS,” short for Shiny New Object Syndrome.  In general, here’s how that disease works: There’s something new and cool and leading edge out there.  It’s so cool that we just HAVE to have it, and we need it now.  Do we need it? How will we use it? Is it right for us?  We don’t care…we don’t even ask the question.  We just want it.  And, we buy it.  If we’re lucky, it works out as a wonderful possession.  And, some times it ends up gathering dust in a drawer some where (it happens to all of us…c’mon, admit it!).

 

SNOS is particularly insidious in the business world.  It’s distracting.  It sneaks up on us when we are not paying attention.  It hypnotizes us.  And then, it strikes.  In comes the CEO who tells his team that they must “get our Facebook page up, pronto!” to remain competitive.  Or, a company establishes a Twitter account and inundates the twittersphere with discount offers. 

 

To be clear, in today’s world I see nothing wrong with experimentation or getting into an area to learn what works and what doesn’t.  In fact, I’d say that if you’re not willing to do that, you should get into another field. 

 

But, the above are real-life examples and emblematic of a critical mistake all too frequently made.  These examples represent tactics leading strategy.  They skip important questions: what do I need this for?  How can I use this new tool?  And, most importantly: What are my overall goals and objectives and what role can this new tool play in helping me accomplish those goals/objectives?  And, how will I evaluate if it’s helping me/us to accomplish our goals?

 

In this headlong rush of confusing a tactic with a strategy, organizations waste time, energy, resources chasing a “shiny new object.” By skipping these questions the organization can find itself distracted from its main goal and/or mission.

 

What’s the SMADer With You?
Is this the fault of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, FourSquare, etc., etc.?  Hardly – they are merely platforms and tools.  In fact, they are potentially powerful tools if handled properly.  Breakthrough tools.

 The sad part is that once a company or executive has fallen prey to SNOS you are at risk of a very serious side effect I call “SMAD” – Shot, Missed And Disappointed.  That happens when you try something new; it doesn’t perform miracles, meet expectations or achieve your objectives (often because objectives/goals have not been clearly articulated) and you feel like you’ve been burned by the results.  You’ve shot, you’ve missed and you are disappointed. 

 

So, you discard the shiny new object; those potentially powerful social tools are shoved in a marketing drawer, declared not worth the effort or money.  And, you miss the opportunity.

 

That happens all the time with marketing tools and it’s happening with social media.  Sorry to say, we are living in a world of instant gratification, quick returns, overblown expectations and a lack of forethought and patience.  If you don’t believe me, ask anyone who has taken in any VC money in the last 15 years.

 

A Cure for SNOS and SMAD

Fortunately, there’s a straight-forward and ready cure for SNOS and SMAD.  I call it BTB – Back To Basics.  (this is my week for acronyms…I hope to recover soon)

 

Objectives lead strategy, strategies lead tactics.  It’s fundamental.  And, all too often, forgotten when a shiny new object gets us all excited.  But, while undeniably exciting, folks, social is just a tactic, a tool.

 

Begin at the beginning, like we all are trained to do.  Business objectives/strategies and marketing objectives/strategies precede and direct whether, how, where, when, and IF social (or any tactic) plays a role in your efforts.  If you follow fundamental strategic practices in developing your business goals and marketing plans, social may very well be included.  But, it's not a driver, objective or strategy any more than a TV commercial, print ad, end-aisle display, market research study or price discount promotion.

 

If included in your marketing efforts, social should be a part of an overall integrated marketing plan, synergistic with other tactical efforts, not just putting up a FB fanbook page to say your brand has one.  In this regard, it serves much like a channel, albeit a channel with unique differences to all the other channels that have been employed by marketers for years. 

 

Put another way, social should be used as one way to help achieve the overall objectives of the organization, Brand, department, individual, etc.  It should be synergistic with other efforts and programs you may be deploying.  And, approached properly, social tools can/should be broader than just “marketing” efforts; it’s an enterprise-wide opportunity.

 

(For some good perspective on a strategic approach to social initiatives, I highly recommend checking out the work of Charlene Li and Jeremiah Owyang at The Altimeter Group.  They’ve got some excellent perspective and advice in this area, like this presentation.  Other good tools can be found on Jay Baer’s Convince&Convert blog.) 

 

If you take a strategic approach you may find that your organization’s business objectives don’t merit a major foray into the social world right now.  Not all tools are needed for all people, organizations or circumstances.  If that’s the case, then fine – don’t spend the time or energy right now.  At least you’ve asked the key questions and made decisions for reasons that make sense for your organization or company.

 

The good news?  I see signs that SNOS has been recognized by more and more organizations.  The excitement and rush to shiny new social objects “just because” is ebbing as people become smarter about how to properly employ these tools. 

 

This won’t happen overnight.  But, by thinking strategically, moving thoughtfully, implementing consistently, monitoring regularly and practicing patience with the view toward a long term goal you’ll be taking a healthy and smart approach.  Get back to basics…it’s the way to avoid that dreaded Shiny New Object Syndrome.   

 

In upcoming posts I’ll share more thoughts on how to strategically cure SNOS and SMAD.  In the meantime, ask yourself: “Am I or is anyone I know suffering from SNOS?”  Are you SMAD? Let me know your thoughts…the doctor is in.

 

 

When does a rose by any other name smell like a sow's ear?  When it's Comcast rebranding its consumer offerings as Xfinity.  If this mix of Shakespeare and the vernacular strikes you as a bit odd, allow me just a marketing minute to explain myself.

Comcast, the largest cable operator in the U.S., is undertaking a rather large effort to recast its image among consumers by renaming all its cable services under the Xinfinity brand.  This follows their move late last year to rebrand their Fancast online video subscription service FancastXfinity.  As noted in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, this move is an effort to appear more modern and appealing, as "its image as a monopolistic cable giant with shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices is well ingrained in the public mind, drawing a sharp contrast with new media brands like Netflix Inc., YouTube and Apple Inc."

Interesting comparison.  Still, this is like the question upside down, backwards, or both.  It isn't a brand issue in my estimation.  I'll repeat: "monopolistic cable giant with shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices."  Get the picture?  I would imagine that if Netflix, YouTube or Apple had "shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices" they, too, would have negative customer perceptions. 

 

We all know: changing a name or rebranding your services does not address the core issues plaguing Comcast and its negative consumer perceptions.  Consumers are pretty smart and discerning.  They know a good product when they see it, experience it, use it.  And, they know a bad one (well, most of the time...how else has the National Enquirer survived for so many years?). 

And, it's also not just a matter of monopoly or pricing.  Apple has historically commanded a price premium for its products, yet consumers value the company's products, technology, user experience, value offerings, etc. and are willing to pay that premium.  That's called the value equation.

If Comcast service were terrific (or at least customer friendly on a consistent basis), their technology strong and innovative (and, in some ways they are), then I don't think we'd be seeing so many negative comments or customer created web sites with names like "ComcastMustDie.com." 

 

I am not on the inside privvy to all the information that has probably been collected, reviewed, analyzed, debated and regurgitated in the process leading up to this move.  So, I can't totally fault Comcast for trying to address a problem.  There are plenty of smart people involved, and I will accept that they believe that this is the best way to proceed.  As Tim Calkins, marketing professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, noted in the WSJ, "I suspect they're calculating that starting fresh by investing in a new name is a better option than trying to reposition the old one."

 

But, this is not simply a matter of repositioning.  The bigger question I have is: is this the best way to spend the money to address the problem?  The expense, in terms of out-of-pocket dollars and management/personnel time, to rebrand its service, conduct the launch marketing effort, as well as follow up efforts to further entrench the new brand will be a very big number (no one is saying how big, but let's face it...it will be huge).  I can't help but wonder if that same money were applied to directly addressing the core problems - "shoddy customer service, clunky technology platforms and rising prices" - might actually yield a better, more effective solution and longer lasting benefit for both customers, the company and its shareholders. 

 

Companies who undertake these types genuine of product/service quality improvement efforts gain credibility with their customers where it counts - in the perception of their products.  Two auto industry examples demonstrate this - Ford's "Quality is Job 1" efforts (which was a slogan built upon Ford's concerted efforts to improve their car quality) and more recently the turnaround in quality (and quality perceptions) of Hyundai.  Do you think it is a coincidence that Hyundai was the only auto manufacturer to realize growth in a disastrous 2009 auto year?

 

Brands are not just names. A Brand is a totality of a consumer's interaction with the product, functional and emotional, rational and irrational.  "Rebranding" (and I hate that term) does not change the underlying functional/rational qualities of a product or service, or the experience a customer has in using that product or service.  That comes by changing the service itself.  Merely changing the name doesn't address the core issue; it covers it up, but it doesn't make it better, more efficient, friendlier, more on time, less confusing, etc.  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear without changing that smelly ear in a meaningful, recognizable way.

 

Which brings me back to my point: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...or as foul as a sow's ear.

 

So, what do you think?  Is this a good move by Comcast or a distracted effort?

 

P.S. Don't even get me started on the name "Xfinity" itself...