There's still time to learn how to Put the Social Web to Work

 Davesbook We've had a great response to our webinar this Wednesday 2/25 at 12 noon eastern time, "Putting the Social Web to Work". But there is still time to sign up -- click here.

Author Dave Evans will take attendees through a straightforward and practical evolutionary process for how to incorporate the Social Web into your marketing plans. He'll begin with listening, then talk about developing a sensible response, and ultimately influencing the markets that are critical to success.

Please join us!

Posted by Jim Nail on February 23, 2009 at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Did Facebook just set the stage for sharing revenue with consumers?

In case there was any doubt before, the backlash against Facebook's change in policy to take more control of consumer-created data and content shows that consumers will militantly protect what they create. Will users next demand a cut of any revenue that Facebook derives from their work?

The various takes on this story hit on many angles, but miss what is potentially the most important implication: yet another barrier to a solid business model for online media.

  • Ad Age focuses on what happens when companies post things without thinking them through. Old story that we've heard a million times and more interestingly from examples like Motrin Moms.

  • Consumerist -- who kicked off this flurry -- gets into the weeds of intellectual property ownership. There are some interesting issues here -- if you are an IP lawyer.

  • Paul Gillin notes this is the second time Facebook has had to reverse a policy related to consumer data usage and hopes that the company will listen to its Bill of Rights and Responsibilities Group. Will Facebook take some of their own medicine and involve their members in creating a solution?

  • Ben McConnell at SWOM cites how the incident shows how important Facebook has become and doubts that a traditional advertising model will fit with the "social utility" of the site. An ongoing debate but the need to find a revenue model is increasingly urgent.

    No, I think the real message here is that online will not obey even the most basic principles of the offline media model. Traditional media relied on the implicit deal that the reader gets free content, but in exchange they have to be exposed to ads. Even this basic assumption of the media model doesn't seem to translate online.

    Consumers have total ownership of what they create despite the fact that they do not pay for the service to upload, store, and display it online. Facebook can't rely on an implicit quid-pro-quo to provide this raft of services in exchange for the right to use some of that content in ways that help them pay for all those servers, bandwidth, etc.

    No, a consumer can take their content away at any time. So if Facebook comes up with any revenue-generating model that the user doesn't like, the user can take their content away, no penalty, no problem.

    The next small step is that the consumer can then take their content away if they don't get a piece of the revenue pie.

    I can't wait to see the group "I want my 15% commission of the revenue on my Facebook page". Hey, maybe I'll start that group!

Posted by Cymfony on February 18, 2009 at 04:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 25 Webinar: Putting the Social Web to Work

I'm really excited to host a webinar next week with my friend and someone I consider a guru of all things digital: Dave Evans. Read on to learn more or click here to register -- and you may win a free copy of Dave's new book!

IMHO, the question nagging marketers today is not "Should I include social media in my marketing mix?" but "What should I do and how do I do it in a way that is efficient, effective, and manageable?"

Davesbook I asked Dave to do this webinar with me because he's one of the best guys I know to start to answer this question. In the early days of online advertising, when I was at Forrester and needed a smart, plugged-in guy to kick ideas around with, I called Dave. He has become equally expert in the world of the social web and his book Social Media Marketing In An Hour a Day answers the question posed above with richness, specific actions plans, and helpful tools. It is topping the charts at Amazon and has earned a well-deserved 5 stars.

Speaking of the book, 100 lucky registrants will get a free copy of the book, autographed by Dave! There's still time to get in on the action so register for the webinar today and put February 25 at 12 pm Eastern time on your calendar!

PS. As a kind of preview, here is a comment in Dave's Clickz column today: "Control gives way to influence on the social Web, and influence is built on the fundamental behaviors of participation." Join me and Dave next week to hear how to adapt to the Influence 2.0 world!

Posted by Cymfony on February 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Good Rates and Good Neighbors

Hi – My name is Jessica and I’ve worked at TNSCymfony for about a year and half.  In that time I’ve had the opportunity to work in a variety of different industries, finally settling in to the insurance industry over the past year.  Oh yes, I’m talking about property/casualty, auto, life and homeowners insurance. If you’re thinking this doesn’t apply to you, take a moment to think about how much money you spend on insurance in a month, a year.  Or better yet, think about the last time you had to file a claim with your insurance company…  So, yes, it’s that important.

Ok, let’s start off with the obvious stuff – Advertising.

Advertising in the insurance industry is all about brand promise.  I’m sure you can think of a few tag lines off the top of your head (or maybe I just read too many insurance blogs):

Geico - “Save you 15 % or more on car insurance”

State Farm -“Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there”

Do these phrases resonate with you?  Do they make you want to seek out their insurance?  If not, maybe their funny, bizarre, perhaps more serious commercials catch your eye... no?  If you’re like many other people out there, you’d say you’re just looking for the best rate and that’s it.  Well, I’ve got news for you – it’s not all about the rate.

After over a year of reading about the ongoing quests for the “best” care/home/life insurance, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not just about price.  Many people post on message boards and blogs about their rates and their experience with specific insurance companies.  For the most part, these people have exposure to at least two or three different companies, switching primarily because of poor customer service, or negative experiences when having to file a claim.

Initially, yes, people want the best deal in town (often asking complete strangers possibly on the other side of the country about what they should be paying for car insurance), but then comes the life change (the accident, the baby, the flood, etc.) and all of a sudden these people are wishing they had better customer service or an agent that was more explicit about their coverage and rates go right out the window.  I’ve read too many instances of people not getting enough money for the house/car because they didn’t know the fine print of their insurance policy. 

Insurance companies are only as good as what they can do for you when things go wrong.  It’s a tough business but there’s a unique opportunity here – to listen and respond to the specific needs of their customers.  

  • Companies do not want to compete on rates alone in the market.  Progressive and GEICO have pretty explicitly carved out that portion of the space, so move on.
  • Social Media gives insurance companies the opportunity to respond to the needs of their customers, far beyond straight rate comparisons.  
  • With so many people asking complete strangers for insurance recommendations, a company could establish itself as a trustworthy knowledge base for people to research their overall coverage needs, breaking free of rate only competition. 


A recent Cone LLC study confirmed that not only are people looking for company involvement in social media, but 85% of social media users believe a company should be present AND interact with consumers via social media.  It’ll be those companies who listen to their customers and evolve to meet their particular needs that end up truly delivering on their brand promise in the end.  

Posted by Jessica Poulin on February 4, 2009 at 05:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Big Super Bowl Ad Winners: Not Pepsi, Coke or Bud

This Ad Age article cites our respected competitor, Collective Intellect, saying that Pepsico dominated the social media discussion of the Super Bowl ads. Not so fast. Movies outstripped Pepsico's performance, and Transformers beat brand Pepsi in the immediate post-game discussion.

I have to run for a plane so I can't make this pretty. I'm not sure why they didn't mention any of the movies, so let me lay out the numbers that TNS Cymfony has tracked in the first 36 hours following the game:

Advertiser

Volume Index

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

737

Star Trek

500

Anheuser-Busch

476

GI Joe: Rise of Cobra

455

Doritos

387

Pepsi

309

Land of the Lost

261

Fast and Furious

221

Coca Cola

215

Hulu

198

  • Five of the ten most talked about advertisers were movies.
  • In the 36 hours following the game, these five advertisers accounted for 37% of the social media discussion.
  • Add in 5 other movies that advertised and the movie category accounts for 42% of the immediate post-game discussion.
  • Transformers had a 13% share compared to brand Pepsi's 5.4%
  • Pepsico has a 15% share during this immediate post-game period.

If I subtract the movie volume from the total volume we tracked, the Pepsico share becomes 27%, still short of the 40% share they claim, but closer.

If I look across the entire period Cymfony tracked to date -- 12/28/08 - 2/2/09 -- movies maintain a 33% to 19% lead over Pepsico's share.

I've read some posts where consumers have said they don't count the movie advertisers when they decide on their favorite ads. I guess neither does my competitor. But the fact is the movies have siphoned off a signficant amount of the discussion that could have gone to other advertisers.

* Volume index represents the amount of discussion for each advertiser, relative to the median amount of discussion for all Super Bowl advertisers. Eg. Transformers received over seven times the amount of discussion of the average advertiser.

Posted by Cymfony on February 3, 2009 at 06:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack