Mike’s Points

Often, one of the best results from reading blogs is that it spurs other, related thoughts.

The judgement and weight given to how you differentiate your brand and the need for clarity in communication came to mind after reading the Mark Cuban/BlogMaverick post on Branding and Newspapers, a Lesson in How Not to Brand and Market.

He makes several noteworthy points about the value of differentiation in branding. For example:

Never, ever, ever consider something that any literate human being with Internet access can create in under 5 minutes to be a product or service that can in any way differentiate your business.

If you feel that you must offer this product or service as a means of “keeping up” or as a checklist item that you must have for competitive reasons, then do everything possible to brand the product or service in a manner that segregates it from the masses. Perception is reality. If you can leverage your existing brand to create the perception that yours is different from the masses in some meaningful way, then you must do everything you can to do so.

Creating a perceived differentiation can take the form of promoting better execution or quality of the product or service, or it may be something as simple as just branding it with a different name than the mass product or service.

Failure to do so will pull your brand down to that of the masses or elevate the masses to a position of being better able to compete with you.

For the most part, the emotional ties around a brand are what make it a success, a failure or just mediocre. The strengths of the brand are what allows the company to survive a crisis, and what propels the company to continued growth beyond competitors. And, for weak brands that have no emotional ties and rely on other activites like low-end pricing and commoditization, they struggle in times of crisis and the regular, cyclical market downturns.

But, part of that branding is to clearly communicate what’s so different. Educating the market is often unnecessary time and costs spent away from effectively marketing the brand — and communicating what’s so different, so special, so unique, so in-demand about it.

Sure, education plays into the branding process, but it can be an up-hill climb and distracting from the core message.

Just because someone can quickly, easily duplicate the appearance of what you’ve done — copy a blog like the one you have — it doesn’t mean the content and the quality are also copied. A blog is just a platform. The content is what makes it different.

I’ve been working on this post in my head since Friday. Before finishing it Tuesday evening, I checked back on Mark Cuban’s blog. Lo and behold there was a comment on another post that makes my point — and makes it better. It comes from NYTimes Sports Editor Tom Jolly:

[T]he defining difference among all news sources has been whether the reporting is reliable - and that has been the case since the beginning of time. When you need information - real, trustworthy information - you go to the source you believe in, whether they are distributing their content by word of mouth, on a cave wall, via pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or through a digital format.

We call our “real time” news reports “blogs” because it’s a term our readers have become familiar with, but what we do with our blogs is different than, say, Deadspin or BlogMaverick. The convention is popular because of the ease of posting, but that doesn’t mean the content of our postings is the same as other sites that also describes themselves as “blogs,” any more than the content of our newspaper is the same as other newspapers.

As with any branding effort, there are judgment calls in how to proceed. Yes, you need to set your brand apart from others in the marketplace — but you can’t confuse the marketplace with your communication.

There is no right or wrong answer in the process — until you start getting results and you see where you need to better differentiate or more clearly communicate.

–Mike  

Control of branding and “the message” or word-of-mouth talk about a company, product, service, issue, etc., is a common theme in social media. It’s been written about in many books, on many blogs and, heck, even in person I’m sure.

And, it came up in a brief back and forth Twitter conversation I had with Geoff Livingston Thursday.

Maybe we’re talking about the same thing, but taking a different approach. Maybe it’s just semantics. Or, maybe we disagree.

As I’ve said in the past, businesses ultimately have control. Or, at least, the most influence.

Let’s start at the beginning: Essentially a company forms when someone sees a need in the marketplace and tries to fill it. (Yes, there are variances, like when a someone makes a product and then tries to find a need, but let’s stick with the basic premise.)

Before that company starts, there is no conversation, reputation or perception about it. It didn’t exist.

That company markets its products, so has contact with prospects, vendors and, ideally, customers via marketing communications, sales personnel, retailers, customer service personnel, etc.

Then, prospects and customers react to those “touch points” with the company — and have the opportunity to give their opinion of the touch point, whether its bitchin’ about a product online or giving rave reviews to the next door neighbor.

What online communication and social media — email, blogs, boards, etc. — have done is give consumers more power. More influence. More opportunity for our voices to be heard by a larger audience. Yes, more control over how ABC Company Inc. and its products are perceived.

But, remember, WOM is as old as history. (Just ask Adam about Eve’s review of the apple!) Companies have never been in total control of their brand or the WOM chatter.

Today, various tools and technology on the Internet give consumers more influence than ever before. Despite that, the ultimate influence of a company’s brand and the perception of its products and services is in the hands of the company.

The company starts all “conversations” via its marketing and other customer contact activities. We’re all just reacting to those contact points. And, we’re having a level of control or influence as to the positive, neutral or negative tone of the chatter — as we’ve always had.

But, ultimately, the company has the most control and influence because it initiated the chatter — via good or bad products, customer service, etc., — or it chose to heed the feedback of its marketplace.

Just like all good companies have done, and will continue to do.

– Mike

Throughout my career (gosh that sounds so old), I’ve regularly worked with building materials suppliers and manufacturers who make products for residential and commercial/architectural building use. So, I know things like SHGC, how passive solar heat gain is a good thing in northern climates, R-values/factors, ENERGY STAR and LEED.

I’ve also worked in other industries where products are designed to reduce fuel consumption and/or eliminate unneeded emissions by reducing idling (along with other features/benefits).

One thing that has always struck me is that, no matter how much of a warm fuzzy feeling you can invoke by talking about the green benefits of your company, products or services, if it doesn’t have a positive affect on your company’s bottomline, it doesn’t really matter. I pointed that out in a post about Wal-Mart some time ago.

In other words, a company is only going to be green, if it can get more green or spend less green to run its business. (Or, if the color of your money is not green, substitute your own currency colour.)

An Information Resources Inc. study (right) found that consumers are giving more weight to green and sustainability features when making purchasing decisions. (Sources: PSFK and Environmental Leader.)

While more than half of those surveyed don’t consider sustainability factors listed, a significant enough do. Signigicant enough to get the attention of manufacturers.

However, as more companies jump on the green, eco-friendly, sustainability bandwagon, consumers naturally will be — should be — skeptical.

According to an Ipsos Reid study conducted this spring (2007) on behalf of Icynene, seven in ten Americans either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ agree that when companies call a product “green” (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a “marketing tactic”. Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being green, or environmentally friendly, acknowledges the report. (Source: Center for Media Research)

Another issue to be resolved by each and every marketer — assuming they’re
all honest about their green efforts — what does it mean to be green, eco-friendly, sustainable, etc.?

Do your products or services reduce the need for natural resources or harmful emissions?

Do your manufacturing and business processes conserve environmental resources or somehow help our Mother Earth?

Do you encourage or mandate green practices from your vendors?

It would seem there are many shades of green. That may be why consumers are skeptical and perceive companies as “spinning” their green ways.

While there is a growing bottomline justification for companies to be green, like anything, they will have to

1) continually educate their customers, prospects and other interested parties about those efforts; and

2) prove it.

And, as PR and other professional and ethical marketing people, it’s up to us to ensure that what we say about clients and employers is the truth. Otherwise, we’ll be black and blue.
– Mike

In media relations, social media and similar communications efforts — where you’re often communicating with one person, one at a time — personalization is best. Know who you’re communicating with, and craft the communication to that person’s preferences (while still being honest, sincere, etc.).

But, in the bigger picture of website design and even larger of corporate identity, should we cater to our primary audience?

According to an eMarketer story today, women use websites more so than other sources when researching products:

“Over half of US female Internet users ages 25 and older say the Internet is their main research source for checking out potential product purchases, according to Burst Media’s “Online Insight” report, published June 2007.

The Internet was named far more often than other methods. Around 10% or fewer of respondents said they got their information from “asking family and friends,” newspapers and magazines, television or other sources.”

So, if a certain demographic is a sizable portion of your target audience, should you develop branding materials (logo, color scheme, etc.) to cater to that audience’s preferences?

If you don’t want to play with your “corporate look,” should you cater your website to your audience’s preferences? Maybe adjust the color scheme, design, features, etc., to a certain key demographic?

Or, should you try to please everyone with general user-centered design?

I guess it depends on how big or significant your key customer and prospect base is.

But, in growing world of being able to connect one-on-one or join online communities specific to our interests, how far does that specific connectivity go in an increasingly global marketplace?

– Mike

Whenever you “try to pull a fast one” over someone, you run a huge risk of ruining that relationship. That is, if you get caught. And, sooner or later, you’ll get caught. You’ll pay a huge price by losing that person’s trust. Word of your deceitful deed will also likely spread so that you lose the trust of the previous fools you’ve fooled and have no credibility going forward.

Monday morning, MediaPost had research from a great study that showed which products benefit the most from product placement, and which demographics are most influenced.

It’s a short article, with informative charts and such focused on product placement. But, the kicker that we all should pay attention to came at the end:

Gary Drenik, President & CEO of BIGresearch, said “Advertisers… are attempting to get their brand message out in non-traditional ways. However, today’s consumer knows when they are being manipulated and product placements must be carefully planned… or… risk being ignored…”

So, here’s a friendly warning:

For those bloggers who are paid for product posts and don’t disclose;

For those anonymous commenters who are really promoting a product, company or cause;

For those marketers who treat bloggers, social community members, etc., like traditional media;

For those companies that set up fake blogs (without disclosing);

And a host of other social media sins and scam . . .

You’re not fooling anyone.

– Mike

(UPDATED Feb. 11, approx. 9:15 a.m. with examples below, marked **. These examples either involved me, or my current employer.)

More and more I’m convinced that public relations should be categorized as a social science in colleges, universities and in the professional world. Not in “Communications.” Not part of the journalism or English curricula. (I’m also convinced that journalism is more of a trade than a profession that requires a degree. Ask, and I’ll explain why.)

At its roots, public relations — and, I suppose, advertising and other marketing communications — is about communicating to people. (Very similar to one of my two college majors, economics.) Social media like blogs, online communities, boards, etc., is a couple steps closer to a true social science than traditional marcomm activities.

While I’m still a firm believer that corporations have the most significant control over their brand, you can employ a bit of social science thinking to work with others (not use others) to try to communicate your brand to others.

Unfortunately, many in our professional don’t have faith in their fellow mankind or don’t know how to work with others to accomplish their social media efforts. And, they resort to fake blogs* or use services like PayPerPost (legit, but definitely not as credible as true, objective, third-party blog posts).

They’re afraid to lose control of the message. But, in traditional media relations, we do that all the time in working with the media. There’s definitely value in having a reporter publish a story about your company, but there’s also a level of risk.

So, why should working with Joe/Jane Blogger be any different?

Here are a couple ways to successfully engage bloggers about your company, product, service, etc. 

Enlist bloggers to review your product. People who blog are naturally opinionated — why else start a blog if you don’t want a soap box or have a cause. So, ask them to give you feedback. Don’t ask them to blog about it. Let them know that if they do blog about your product, you’ll offer their readers a discount or other something special. But, be sure they know that you do value their credibility and objectivity. So, even if you don’t get publicity (i.e., a post), you’ll still get objective product feedback. That’s always valuable. And, if you do get blog posts out of it — afterall, these are opinionated people you’re dealing with — then you’ve achieved two positive results.

Remember: Be careful on the perceived value of anything you send bloggers. Their credibility is important. You don’t want to be seen as buying their positive feedback. If you’re in doubt about the perceived value of a product, make sure bloggers know that what you send them is a loan (and you will pay for them to send it back). If the product price is low, say $15, that’s likely nothing that will be perceived as undue influence if they keep it. (For an example, here.**)

Offer bloggers an opportunity they normally may not have. Offer them access to your company, to beta test a product, or to attend a special event. And, then let them blog about the opportunity as they want. You want their credible, unbiased opinion — you don’t want a paid hack. Better to err on the side of less than more in terms of any type of compensation or expectations from you. (For an example, see here.** Note that expenses were paid, not time paid.)

Our job entails determing the how in communicating a message as much as what that message is. Get to know your audience and those who reach your audience, and figure out how best to reach them.

– Mike

*Note that the link takes you to a Google News search without “Edelman.”

They say (whoever “they” is) that it’s more cost effective to retain current loyal customers than it is to generate new loyal customers.

Along that same line of thinking, is it best to start with the right brand positioning and try to promote it or rebrand — that is recreate — yourself?

It seems as if Brian Connolly and the others behind the famous?/infamous? Strumpette blog are trying to rebrand the blog.

If you’ve perused the PR-type blogs you’ve undoubtedly come across the strumpette blog. Early on (still now?) it has a reputation for lashing out against some bloggers and companies involved in social media. And, it often labeled those posts as “satire.” (Search for yourself. I’m not providing links here. I’ve done that enough.)

But, of late, has strumpette been turning over a kinder, more civil and credible leaf?

Former PRWeek Editor and now author Phil Hall with his regular Friday “gospel” posts?

And, with at least one, seemingly nice comment?

The above couple examples and other actions by strumpette has me giving a second thought about strumpette. But, is it too late? Can we really trust the seemingly honorable, or at least civil intentions of strumpette?

If I correctly read the vibes from strumpette and if those vibes are sincere, I wish BC/AC luck in their efforts. However . . . if strumpette really is serious about rebranding itself, shouldn’t it have gone down that road from the start? If it’s really trying to rehabilitate its image, wouldn’t it have been easier without the tone of the early posts?

Or, would strumpette had obtained its level of self-proclaimed high traffic volume and notoriety without the posts during the first year of its existence?

Not sure I know the answer to any of the above. My best attempt at answering is this: Be true to who you are or what you want to be, whether a company, individual or blog. If you want to rebrand yourself, it’s much harder to successfully accomplish that task when you have to re-educate your audience.

There’s definitely something to be said about how first impressions stay with you.

– Mike

if we know they’re fake.

B.L. Ochman doesn’t agree. BTW, thanks to her blogging about the Hotel Campari campaign (promoting Italian liquor). Apparently, MRM Worldwide — the agency — has set up fake profiles on Flickr, MySpace and YouTube in conjunction with the campaign. (See Richard MacManus for details.)

Ochman writes:

I think this campaign is just as unethical as Wal-mart and other flogs. And that it abuses the trust upon which social media is built. What do you think?

The Edelman/Wal-Mart fake blogs were purposefully deceitful. Intended to look like a grass-roots, genuine effort. That was wrong.

However, unlike Edelman/Wal-Mart, we know from the get-go the Hotel Campari blog and the social media profiles are fake. If a blog is upfront, fake is fine. It makes it into a game. That’s what many social networking sites are about anyway — entertainment.

If a company wants to try to sell me along the way, that’s fine. Transparently fake is fine.

Just look at John Tucker or Borat. Those are obviously fictional characters set up on MySpace to promote a movie. (Disclosure: Borat is a friend.)

So, go ahead and set up fake blogs and social profiles. Involve us. Just make damn well sure we know it’s fake.
– Mike

Steve Rubel/MicroPersuasion has a column this week in “Advertising Age” (and on his blog) about brand engagement being a myth.

Now, I’m not going to get into his points and definition of engagement. What I definitely have an issue with is what “we, as marketers” should do:

[W]e shouldn’t care about brand engagement. Instead we should focus on how we get people connected with each other and measure the number of times we helped them do so. That’s why venues such as Second Life, YouTube, Facebook and other social networks are so hot: They allow people to connect with each other.

If you want to see engagement, find the right communities, build programs that empower people to connect, then get out of the way. Your brand will get a lift purely through association.

While relationships can play an important role for branding and businesses, businesses are not successful solely “through association.”

Enough of focusing on social networking and relationships. Ask for the darn sale.

Don’t get me wrong. Companies communicating with — even engaging and conversing with — customers and prospects is good. It helps build trust, credibility and even with some products and on some level, a degree of emotional attachment (but those are very few).

But, companies still need to ask for the sale. Offer the service. Hear the cash register cling.

Sales — which generate revenue which is ultimately why companies are in business — won’t come through association.
– Mike

Technorati tags: engagement, selling, Steve Rubel

When you give first thoughts about blogging and branding, and what each typically entails and means, I don’t think they can co-exist within a corporation.

Blogging: Entrepreneurial. Individualistic. The “wild, wild Web.” Independent. Uncensored. Opinionated. On the fly.

Branding: Projecting a coordinated communicated effort. Consistent messaging. Trying to project across the company what that company means. Its values. Its perception. Its image.

But, the two can co-exist — with some ground rules for blogging.

As I posted before, all companies should include blogging as part of its HR policy. It should be clearly spelled out what the guidelines are and boundaries for employees anytime they communicate about work (and their customers/clients, too) outside of their official role as employee.

What about these for some of the guidelines:
> It’s okay to be critical of the company, but make it constructive (vs. name calling), and offer suggestions. (If you were part of the project of that you are critical, be sure you didn’t have these suggestions before but didn’t speak up.)
> Don’t disclose experimental or proprietary company information, or other details that is confidential — particularly if the company is publically-held. (This is a no-brainer.)
> As with all employees, any and all media inquiries — and maybe serious customer ones, too — should be directed to corporate communications/PR or other appropriate department.
> If you are blogging about the company, be aware of the brand the company is seeking to project (and the onus for this awareness is on the company more so than it is on the employee).
> Do not rush to blog on a topic, event, company news, etc., until you know all details.

I’m a firm believer that, for the right company with the right people, blogging can give a cold, impersonal corporation a personality, a face, and a level of familiarity and even intimacy with customers and prospects that very few other forms of communication offer. However, the goals and objectives of the entity that is the company still take precedent.

– Mike

Technorati tags: blogging, corporate blogging, branding, public relations, PR