Mike’s Points

(*First, if you are reading into the headline that I or PR communicators should treat their target audiences like children, you’re reading too much into the headline, taking it literally or trying to start something. That’s not the point of this post. If you still believe it is, please leave. Otherwise, I would most appreciate it if you continued reading and left your $0.02 with a comment.)

During some email back and forth a couple weeks ago with Ann Handley regarding a comment I left on her blog, I was reminded how much my children teach me. Then it hit me — that much of what I’ve learned being a parent is very relevant to public relations and marketing communications.

Each child is different, so you can’t parent them each the same way. Different temperaments, different personalities, different abilities, different ways they react to me (and my wife. From here on out, whenever I say me, I mean us).

The same goes with the audiences we are trying to market and communicate to. Each person is unique and reacts in different ways for what “works” for reaching him or her with the message. At the same time, there are generalities we use in parenting our children. We can’t say the same thing four different ways. The same goes for communicating to our audiences. For example, look at reporters at a particular media outlet. There might be a company-wide policy or preference for receiving news, or for when you can contact them.

Be patient because each has his/her own time table. You never really know when something that you’ve been telling or trying to teach your children will finally click and sink in. Or, when you tell one to do something — clean up, for example — he or she will do it, but do it his or her own way. If you don’t have a set time table yourself, that’s fine in most cases.

The same goes for pitching a story. It may be a great story, but the timing for that particular reporter may not be right. You may get a call from that reporter a week or couple months later — because the story was good, but he/she couldn’t for whatever reason act on it then. That’s also why you need to constantly remind your audience of your client or your employer with marketing messages — because the audience may not need your product or service now — but will in three months. Best to be top of mind.

You need to know and be involved in your children’s lives. Yes, that may be an obvious one, but it’s easy to be more of the care-giver — looking after their basic needs — than being a parent and playing with your children. My wife and I have a nearly nine-month-old daughter. While I love her as much as the others, I look forward to the time when she is less dependant on me (when we can communicate better, when she can easily sit up on her own, etc.). While the baby stage is great, it also is great when we can interact more. And, when I need to be less of a care-giver of my daughter and I can spend fun, quality and more quantity time with all my children.

The same point goes for our audience: Essentially, you need to know your audience; not just market or spew forth messages to them. Research, read, contact and even interact with your audience. Know what they like and dislike, their preferences. That’s one of the great advantages of social media: market feedback and interaction.

Yes, really knowing your audience is not easy, but you’ll have a much higher rate of success than the proverbial throwing a lot of mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. Besides, how else can you do point #1 above if you don’t know your audience?

The basics: You need to want to be a parent, or at least be open to it and take it for the important responsibility it is. There’s been enough times when I’ve heard about, seen or read about people who really should not be parents. More often than not, they’re too selfish. I have felt sorry for their children, and hoped that God would particuarly watch over them. For the vast majority of people who are parents, even if they didn’t at first want to be, they were responsible enough to know and take on the sacrifices and life re-focusing that’s often required to raise children.

As with public relations and any profession, you need the basics. You need to know stuff like good writing (grammar, how different tactics call for different writing styles, etc.), have a solid work ethic, be honest and ethical, have a natural curiosity for your clients’ businesses (and definitely your employer’s business!), and have a sincere interest in others.

After all this, please don’t think I’m elevating the role of PR and marketing communications to that of parenthood. Being a parent is by far one of the most important things I’ve ever have and ever will do in my life. That’s why, I’m looking at parenting and seeing what I can apply from it to my job — not the other way around.

-Mike

Whether you work predominantly in offline marketing (like I used to) or work predominantely in online marketing (like I do now), knowing your audience and where you can find them is invaluable.

Blogs, boards and social media in general have been around for many years. However, like most product lifecycles, they’re still in their infancy, still in the growth mode. Being so new, many people and companies are trying to carve out a social media expertise for themselves. That’s fine and good, but don’t get myopic.

The United States population now is about 303+ million people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Okay, but really, most of us are not marketing to youth. As of July 2003, there were 217.8 million people age 18 and older, with a total U.S. population of about 291 million people. So about 75% of the U.S. population were adults (18+ yoa) in 2003. Let’s assume that’s consistent with 2008.

According to eMarketer, nearly 194 million people in the U.S. are online, as of a February 2008 report.

That eMarketer report doesn’t distinguish if that population consists of adults only or all age groups, so I’ll assume all. That’s only 64% of the total U.S. population (194/303). Not bad, but I’d think it’d be more. If you use the same 75% figure as above — that 75% of the U.S. population consists of those 18+ yoa — then only about 145.5 million (0.75×194)U.S. adults are online.

How many are using social media technologies like blogs, boards, sharing videos, rating products, etc.?

According to Forrester’s Social Technographics data obtained in late 2006, only 48% of the U.S. adult, online, consuming* population are using social technologies. It’s simple math since the graph stats 52% are not in any of the categories Forrester measured. (*I’m not sure what % of the adult online population Forrester counts as “consumers” so my numbers may be off, but still good for the point being made.)

If you take 48% of the 145.5 million adults online (0.48×145.5), you get a little less than 70 million U.S. adults online using social media technologies.

To have success in social media, word-of-mouth activities, you really don’t need a lot of people. And, with the ability to niche your market, you likely only need fewer than that to call a social media marketing campaign a success. So, that’s still. a. lot. of. people.

However, don’t get caught up in your own online, interactive, digital world and think “everyone’s online.” They’re not. A sizeable part of your and your clients’/employer’s audience may be offline or — believe it or not — simply not using social media.

The good news is that, enough of them may be online. And, likely that online, adult, U.S. population using social technologies will be growing. (But, that’s another post for another day.)

– Mike

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

especially social media.

Today, the Center for Media Research has a must-read report: “Emotional Business Bonding on Social Networks,” based on research from Communispace:

“New research from Communispace, supporting the hypothesis that people are looking to fulfill six essential social needs online, and drawing on the Maslow hierarchy of human needs, concludes that businesses that help facilitate those needs are more likely to create deeper emotional bonds than usually exist between companies and customers.”

The key point that, while consumers don’t necessarily want a relationship with companies, they do want their needs met. You market by meeting needs. And, in the online world, you need to meet personal, social needs to be successful.

You don’t “hook” people. It’s much more subtle. I don’t mean deceptive tactics, but play into human nature.

This is an approach I bring up every so often via Twitter (in reply to Chris Brogan) or here, and definitely in my work when possible. Here are some pointers and thoughts on how to:

• In social media marketing, keep in mind we’re typically dealing with every-day people; not people at work, like reporters. Even if you are dealing with professional or industry bloggers and in other social media, you need to meet their needs.
• Effective working in social media requires the same long-term commitment and effort as in face-to-face dealings with people.
• Be humble, admit when you’re wrong, and be open to criticisms (call it “market research” if it helps).
• Contribute to the social media you’re involved in when it doesn’t have anything to do with your employer or client. In addition to sharing knowledge and helping others, it can lower barriers to how people view you when you’re not always bringing up employer/client-related stuff. After all, you are there to better the community, right?

Ultimately, when you’re in public relations (or other professional communicators role), you’re involved in social media to market a company, product, service or cause. Just make sure that you don’t forget that your audience’s needs need to be met first, before they will consider your needs.

– Mike

In writing this post, you’ll notice that I (too) often linked back to my own posts. I try not to do that (too) often, but it’s often easier to make my points. In this process of reviewing past posts, it struck me how similar Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, referenced in the Communispace story, is to Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

Let me give Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, IBM, Sony and even Microsoft some free advice: Team up, co-op and go after Apple. (While there’s still enough of you left.)

It’s eating your lunch and it’ll be the worm that eats into a sizeable amount of your profits, unless you do something about it.

International Herald Tribune, Oct. 22, 2007:

Driven in part by what analysts call a halo effect from the iPod and the iPhone, the market share of the company’s personal computers is surging.

Two research firms that track the computer market said last week that Apple would move into third place in the United States behind Hewlett-Packard and Dell on Monday, when it reports product shipments in the fiscal fourth quarter as part of its earnings announcement.

PC World, Dec. 3, 2007:

Apple has jumped to 6.81 percent market share of the OS market, according to the latest research from Net Applications.

The figures confirm a slowdown in market share in October, which quickly became an increase once Leopard reached retail, driving Apple’s slice of the online client market up 3.34 percent.

Industry watchers may note that 6.81 percent is Apple’s largest slice of the market for a decade, putting the company in second place behind systems from Microsoft.

Though, to the credit of the  gang noted above, Apple is not playing fair. In its Apple vs. PC ads, it’s going after an industry, not a specific corporation (for the most part). It’s playing the David to the collective Goliaths.

Really, as I’m sure others have noted, it’s a smart move. Do you really expect the others to take time away from marketing against each other to go after Apple — a move that, if successful, would help their competitors. Can’t have that!

Since Apple, the Mac and even Steve Jobs seem to have a bit of a cult following, guess it’s Apple vs. PC ads is more of cause marketing, than out-right, profit-motivated marketing.

So, whenever you can, don’t market against a competitor; go after a faceless, substance-lacking industy. Like the PC industry.

– Mike (who typed this post on his Dell Dimension E510 desktop)

P.S.

It’d be a good reference piece to name similar corporation vs. a collective marketing efforts. Can you name some?