Mike’s Points

In the local Sunday paper, there was a Bloomberg News Service story about Facebook’s recent influx of cash from Russia-based Digital Sky Technologies, and what that means to Facebook’s total valuation. (I couldn’t find the exact story on line, but here’s a similar one with the below tidbit.)

In that story, there’s this tidbit:

“Facebook and MySpace may have a combined $820 million in combined sales this year, a fraction of the $45.7 billion online advertising market, according to New York research firm eMarketer Inc.”

In that same story, there’s this forecast:

“Facebook generates sales through advertising. The company expects revenue to climb 70 percent this year.”

While that sounds positive for Facebook and I would think advertising on social networks in general, I can’t see where advertising on social networks is the best bang for the marketing buck. CTRs stink on Facebook. And, overall, social network ads get little attention.

If you want to reach social network members, go ahead and advertise for awareness, but don’t spend a lot of money on it or expect a lot of returns. What should you do to market on social networks?

Be social.

Engage.

Connect.

Those are nice words, and let’s look at some ways they can be used:

• Start a page or group — and make it active.  Make sure someone in your business or at your agency is in charge of making that page active. Post information and value of interest to member and potential members — not just about your company or product.
• Engage members by starting discussions; seeking opinions; feedback on product ideas, industry tips, trends, etc.
• Drive membership while showing value to current members or fans with a contest. Consider regular, but small contests that’ll result in beneficial exposure, mentions, testimonials, etc., of your brand.
• Develop and promote a widget that provides value around your company, product or service.

Ultimately, do regular activity that gives value to those you want to reach.

Do not broadcast ads — that’s old-media, one-way communication on new media, interaction platforms. The two just don’t mix.

When in Rome, be like the Romans.

Be social on social networks.

What other ways can companies and associations engage with their audience on social networks?
-Mike

A worthwhile ad, slogan, headline, etc., has three key ingredients:

• It has to be memorable.
• It has to easily convey its message — no lag time in understanding it.
• Its message has to have some type of selling aspect to it — influences your purchase decision.

A lot of the Bud Light TV commercials are great — but they’re little more than entertainment. If that’s what Bud Light is trying to achieve — make you think well of its beer — fine. If that’s not Bud Light’s intend, it’s lost on me. If it is, funny beer commercials don’t make me want to buy beer.

If an ad, tagline, etc., easily conveys its message but it does not have a lasting impression, you have to keep seeing it to keep it top-of-mind when you are ready to purchase (assuming the message registers positively with you). But, like many things, repetition causes us to gloss over things. Go numb to the purpose.

Many years ago, a former employer worked with the Toledo Zoo in its marketing communications. Together, LMG and the zoo developed a great line:

Everybody’s zooing it

And, there were other variations (”the newest thing to zoo” and so on).

It was catchy and memorable, and demonstrated the zoo as an action: If you’re going to the zoo, you’re zooing it. It generated a positive, desirable feel to going to the zoo.

It was the basis for many short-term campaigns. For a time, it even became part of Toledo’s pop culture (see #22). And, of course, there was the “everybody’s zooing it” song. (Archive.org is a great site!)

And, though the Toledo Zoo is no longer using the “zooing” it campaign, it still resonates with the Toledo and area community. This picture (right) was taken from my kids’ elementary school.

That’s a sign of a great slogan.

So, while achieving one or two of the three points above is nice, you’ll miss your mark if you can’t achieve all three points. It’s not easy, but it is necessary.

-Mike

Whether you are a manager or a coach, in a business, association or sports team, you need to know the basics to be successful.

What are the basics?

The basics are those things that you should do to be successful — and do them well. The no-brainers. The duhs. The things you really don’t have to think about. You should know them and they should be automatic.

One basic — a fundamental, must-have-no-matter-what basic — in public relations is high-quality writing skills. That is, if you want to be successful.

But, what about tactics?

A post by Lee Odden at TopRankBlog.com got me to thinking about basics, and what they are. He asked readers, “What 3 digital marketing channels & tactics will you emphasize in 2009?”

I posted my three — social media monitoring & outreach, blogger relations, and online contests, giveaways — because I thought at least the first two were among the basics any company should do in its public relations efforts. I’m a firm believer that, while you don’t have to actively participate in social media, you do have to monitor and listen.

And,  because blogger relations is so similar to media relations (though different approaches) and media relations is a common PR tactic, I naturally see blogger relations as being a basic for many, if not most companies and organizations.

But, then I posted the survey and sought feedback at Social Media Breakfast-Toledo’s own network. The two responses showed that others have their own “basics.”

While there are some fundamental skill basics, as the example I mentioned above for PR pros, the marketing communications basics differ depending what you want to accomplish.

Successful PR and other marketing communications goes a step or two above the basic tactics. The true basics are determining the objectives (ideally, measurable objectives) of what you want to accomplish. Once you have these objectives in mind, then you set the basic tactics.

For those objectives, they can be driven by the overriding, 30,000-feet-view strategies for the long-term vision of a company, or they can direct the short-term needs of a campaign. Regardless, it is the process of correctly setting and communicating the objectives that is the basic.

-Mike

No matter how effective a particular tactic is, if it doesn’t reach a large enough audience, how effective is it really?

From MarketingCharts:

Print newspapers ads reach people at all stages of the buying cycle - inspiring web research at the beginning and prompting in-store/web purchase at the end, said the Newspaper Association of America (NAA), citing a Google study.

Clark, Martire & Bartolomeo conducted the study for Google.

“Newspaper advertisements drive readers to the web, where they search, find and obtain products,” said Spencer Spinnell, head of the Google Print Ads program.

On the other hand, according to Editor & Publisher, the Newspaper Association of America (same group involved with the above), reported its “worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.“

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 — the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950….

As newspaper Web sites generate more advertising revenue, the growth rate naturally slows.

The NAA reported that online revenue now represents 7.0%* of total newspaper ad revenue in 2007 compared to 5.7% in 2006.

*The NAA originally reported in the release that online revenue represented 7.5%.

I’m not poo-pooing newspapers. My original love is journalism. And, I’ve repeatedly posted that newspapers need to capitalize on their online presence and their local news-gathering resources — resources few other media can compete with. The point about newspapers being one of the best go-to sites is backed by another NAA report.
But, it does seem that the NAA and others involved in the print newspaper ad effectiveness survey forgot that advertising revenues are dropping.
-Mike

Numbers are parodoxical.

On one hand, they are black or white. Wrong or right. Inarguable.

On the other hand, they can be manipulated to result in a conclusion you desire.

But, if you have enough numbers, you are able to see the truth. Or, at least, enough of the situation than just one statistic.

A Ford Motor Company ad (”Both coasts have spoken.”) on the back page of the September 2007 issue of Motor Trend caught my eye recently. The ad boasts that, after 400 people test drove the Ford Fusion, Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord, Ford rated higher than its competitors in terms of being “attractive,” “fun to drive,” “performs well” and “handling.” Each time a participant scored the Ford, Toyota or Honda in one of the categories, that car received a point.

Okay, comparisons versus competitors is good advertising. Head to head.

But, if you look at the numbers, there are other ways to look at the survey.

In the “attrative” category, Ford scored about 250/400. Or, percentage wise, only 62.5% liked Ford. If you’re in school, that’s an F.

In the “fun to drive” category, Ford scored 300/400. Or, 75%. That’s a solid C.

In the “performs well,” category, Ford scored about 310/400. Or, 77.5%. Still a C.

In the “handling” category, Ford scored about 240/400. Or, 60%. An F.

Granted, Toyota and Honda scored worse.

Now, if you’re playing baseball, Ford and Honda would both be MVPs, with Toyota doing okay.

Life is neither a baseball game nor a classroom. And, really, if I’m buying a vehicle, things like price, reliability and safety (I’m a parent) are much more important.

And, if you look at each of the figures individually, there’s really nothing to boast about — no matter what coast you’re on.

– Mike

(Owner of a 1998 4dr Ford Escort (mine’s red) and a 2001 Honda Odyssey)