Notes from OMMA Social Panel: Authentic Conversations

I just finished a great discussion about how marketers can create authentic conversations in social media here at OMMA Social. Here are the highlights....

Alan Wolk, of the Toad Stool, made an interestesting analogy: "DM was to web 1.0 and PR is to Web 2.0".

Ro Choy of Rock You, addressed the common barrier that many companies are afraid of negative comments, "The more authentic, the less negative comments you get."

Michael Sanchez of CafeMom, responded to an audience question about the potential to "frack" your brand with dispersed, short comments and conversations across the spectrum of social media, saying, "Social media gives you more opportunities to get the communication right."

Craig Engler made a parallel comment as a result of his experience dealing with some criticism that popped up in social media when the SciFi Channel launched their new branding as SyFy: "When you explain what you are doing, people understand and often change their tune."

One of the questions we kicked around was "Why is being authentic so hard?" It occurred to me during the conversation that, as marketers, our first instinct is to focus on making the topic and message authentic for the brand image and personality. But this is only 1 of 3 dimensions of authenticity that need to be right:

• Be genuine to the medium: social media's unique and compelling differences from other media are self expression and community. Any brand participation in social media must make space for these characteristics.

• Get the voice right: corporate speak is definitely out. Having an individual like your CEO is great. Having people across your organization can be better. Just have a conversation and if you can't answer a question because you don't know the answer or for business/legal reasons you can't answer, just say that you can't answer the question.

Posted by Jim Nail on June 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | 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

Transforming Research, Step 3: Storytelling -- or tailoring?

  At the October 29 ARF Transforming Research conference, there was a strong theme that market researchers should weave interesting stories about how consumers interact with brands rather than present reams of data to induce a Powerpoint coma. But storytelling risks creating a fiction that loses touch with the carefully gathered facts in our research. Perhaps the better way to think about it is tailoring...

I've been meaning to write this entry for a while then this weekend a program on NPR's "Speaking of Faith", spurred me to do it. A cancer doctor spoke of her evolution from speaking with patients about the facts of their disease to listening to their life stories and how the cancer has affected them. She eventually followed this into a psychotherapy practice.

What does this have to do with the market research industry? One line in the interview really caught my ear when she said that the facts of the disease don't mean anything about the person and their struggle. Their stories held greater truth about the person than what stage the disease was at, how tumors grew or shrank, what the various tests tracked, etc

Isn't this the same with market research, especially when we are trying to understand concepts like brand engagement? The facts - the demos, market share, even time spent with a medium or a web site - don't really say anything about the nature of engagement. For that we need a different level of understanding, one that is more qualitative, one that looks not just at the interaction between the brand and the person, but broadens the view of that interaction in the context of the person's life.

That's the power of ethnography. And that is the kind of story that social media analysis at its best delivers.

The challenge for market researchers is to prevent the "story" from crossing the line into fiction. While stories need to put data in the background and bring the narrative to the fore, they must remain true to that data. To be storytellers, researchers must leave the safety and security of the survey tabulation and create a three dimensional being.

But perhaps storytelling isn't the right way to think about it. After all, Homer was free to create characters like Hector and Achilles, whether they existed or not because his concern was to communicate his ideals of courage, loyalty, patriotism, etc. He could shape his characters to make his point.

Researchers, on the other hand, must first draw the characters, then figure out the "point": the person's motivations, the relationship with the brand, the likely behavior.

So perhaps we should think of the evolution of research more like being a tailor. We have a set of measures -- waist, chest, sleeve length, inseam -- and we must now make a suit that fits the person. If we deviate too far from the measures, the suit won't fit. But if we stick to the measures and carefully stitch them together, the end result is something far more compelling than the numbers alone would suggest!

Posted by Jim Nail on December 1, 2008 at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Super Bowl Ads -- It's Not About the Game!!!

A WSJ article today says that many long-time advertisers are wondering if, in this tough economy, they should invest $3 million for :30 seconds on the game. The key is not the game: they key to ROI is the PR activity before the game.

Come to my ARF webinar tomorrow -- "Effective PR and Word of Mouth Strategies to Maximize a Brand's Investment in Super Bowl Advertising" -- to learn more but here are the topline findings from two years of analysis Cymfony has done on Super Bowl advertising:

• PR adds significant audience. The prospect of reaching 90 million people on February 1, 2009 makes media planners drool. But PR can add brand reach prior to the game: Doritos drove 40 million impressions prior to the 2007 Super Bowl.
• To get WOM, drive PR. Spurring word of mouth discussion after the game is a key goal -- that's why brands and agencies go to great pains to come up with breakthrough creative. But the brands that are successful in post-game are consistently the brands that get the most pre-game coverage in traditional media.
• Social media discussion is a good proxy for likeability. For the 2008 Super Bowl, we collaborated with our colleagues at TNS who conducted a classic ad likeability research survey and compared their results to the "favorability" of social media posts. The same10 advertisers were on the top of both lists. While the social media audience displays some unique characteristics, their opinions accurately reflect the broader population.

So GM, Fedex, Monster, Pedigree, and others who are on the fence: tune in to my webinar before you make your final decision!

Posted by Jim Nail on November 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Learning from the Obama Campaign

Since Tuesday I've seen lots of stories and posts about what marketers and PR people can learn from president-elect Obama's use of social media. My main takeaway: wait. There's more to learn in the coming year as President Obama mobilizes his social media skills to use the power of "We, the People" to trump the lobbyists and legislators who will try to advance their own agenda over his.

There's no doubt that the Obama campaign masterfully used social media to mobilize new voters. There's no question in my mind that this race will mark a watershed in campaign media stratgy not seen since the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy campaign ushered in the era of political television strategy.

But the real story is just beginning. A savvy social media user like Obama won't disband it, in the way he disbands his campaign staff. In the coming year, President Obama will mobilize this network to help him drive change and repel the usual Beltway obstacles that are undoubtedly already plotting to drive the agenda their way.

This will be an even greater testament to the strength of American democracy than electing an African-American to the presidency, which is rightly hailed as a great moment in America. If he can leverage social media to offset the forces of money and special interests that drive so much of our national agenda, an historic election will be followed by an even more epochal change: a return to "We, the People" promoting the general welfare and not narrow interests.

Marketers and PR people take note: this will also signal the end of the campaign-oriented mentality of our current approach. It will usher in an era of understanding that a brand relationship doesn't begin and end with a purchase or a coupon redemption, any more than a presidence begins and ends on election day. It is a living, breathing bond that can now be nurtured in a way impossible before the advent of social media. Strong brand bonds will trump even the best advertising and promotions of brands without this relationship.

Can the marketing and PR professions make this change?

Yes, we can!!

Posted by Jim Nail on November 6, 2008 at 04:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

See Jim's Picks and Pans...

...of last night's Super Ad Bowl at our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog.

Posted by Jim Nail on February 4, 2008 at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Super Bowl ads bad for stock price? I doubt it.

The SportsBiz blog on CNBC speculated that a 20% drop in the stock of sports apparel maker Under Armor was caused by the company's announcement that they will advertise on the Super Bowl. I know it has been a slow news year for Super Bowl advertising, but this blogger should stick to sports, and forget about the business...

We noted this news earlier today on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog. Digging into it shows there is more to the story than the Super Bowl ad. The company announced 2007 results and discussed 2008 outlook in a press release yesterday. The main points are:

• The company confirmed previously forecast overall revenue and profit growth for the year.
• But the company announced front-loading the marketing expenses in the first half of the year to support the launch of their Performance Trainer shoes. The Super Bowl ad is one element of this acceleration of marketing expenses.
• The Performance Trainer shoes hit the store in May, so sales of those shoes won't hit the books until H2.
• Wachovia immediately downgraded the stock to "market perform" citing "...the slowdown at retail...and the uncertainty of launching the cross trainers" as reasons to "step to the sidelines on the stock."
• CreditSuisse maintained their "outperform" rating, noting that "Marketing is a critical investment for any brand company..."

So the bean counters are nervous about the company spending a bunch of money now and promising future revenues from an unproven product in an uncertain economy. The Super Bowl is the least of the concerns.

Posted by Jim Nail on January 18, 2008 at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Doritos Super Bowl contest -- what do last year's winners say?

On Monday, Doritos announced the three finalists for this year's Crash the Super Bowl contest. I took that opportunity to talk to last year's winners, Dale Backus and Wes Philips of 5 Point Productions. The full podcast is on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog.

I talked with Dale and Wes right after their success last year, so I used this as an excuse to catch up on how that success drove their business this year, what they think of changing to more of an American Idol type contest vs. last year's ad contest -- and, of course, which of the finalists they were going to vote for.

We also spoke with a reporter at Ad Age yesterday, so a story should be out soon. Dale and Wes revealed one other bit of history I hadn't known before: they had only started 5 Point Productions a month or so before entering the contest.

Take a few minutes to listen to the podcast -- Dale and Wes tell the story of how they used word of mouth marketing to drive the voting that made them a finalist and have some advice for Doritos about how to overcome some of the potential limitations the music video format may have in delivering strong brand messaging for Doritos.

Posted by Jim Nail on January 9, 2008 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Social Networks' 2008 Tightrope Walk

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble....

My musings on whether social media has become a bubble has stirred up a bit of buzz.

But here's the real issue: in order to develop a solid revenue model, social networks must walk a very thin line between pleasing marketers without alienating their users. The models and examples exist today; the question is: will media companies and marketers resist the urge for the quick hit and exercise the retraint, wisdom, and patience to build a mutually beneficial relationship with their audience?

Paul LaMonica at CNN Money picked up on it earlier this week and so when I was in New York we had a wide-ranging discussion which he wrote up here.

The blog Socialized, took it the wrong way, and thought I was an idiot. I corrected her interpretation and she kindly put up a new post to draw attention to my comments.

To save you all the trouble of wading through all the various links and comments, here is a succinct summary of my key points.

1. The bubble is in VC funding and start up companies, not in consumer behavior. I elaborated on this in this post and as I told Paul the trend of consumers using social media is "unequivocal, inexorable, and irreversible." Just as consumers kept using the Internet after the 2000 bubble burst, they will keep using social media no matter how much money the VCs lose or how much doom-and-gloom comes from the media. Smart marketers will keep their eyes on their audience.
2. The social media business model creates greater tension than other media businesses. Any media business has to manage the tension between editorial and advertising. But here the tension is especially acute. One of the drivers of social media's growth is that consumers are sick of the ad clutter in other media. In addition, the value of social media is personal relationship, not information. Ads that are relevant to the editorial are more accepted (think cosmetics ads in Cosmo or shotgun ads in Field & Stream. What kind of ad is relevant to insert between two people building a personal rapport?
3. Marketers are likely to push the model the wrong way. In marketers' embryonic understanding of the social media ethos, they will ask -- and push for -- what they know: guaranteed placements and impressions/GRPs or some other measure or audience size. Banner ads everywhere....lists of members they can ping to invite to friend their brand profile. Facebook is facing a mini-rebellion from their members with a 50,000-strong group called "Petition: Facebook, stop invading my privacy." (As an aside I was invited to join this group -- by a friend who is a senior marketer at a CPG company!)

To me this is reminiscent of the pop-up ad phase of online advertising: advertisers wanted more intrusive units than 468x60 banners, sites obliged them, felt huge backlash from their audience, and dialed down, or even eliminated pop-ups altogether. Kudos to Facebook for listening to their users and rapidly amending policies that meet resistance, as they have done with the Beacon Opt-out policy.

But social networks have a better alternative than retreat: educate marketers on the right way to become part of the social media environment. The panel I did at AdTech this month had great case studies from Coke, Digitas (representing Delta), MySpace and YouTube that begin to provide models other advertisers can follow to be successful.

And, thanks to MySpace, Isobar, and Carat, there is great research that has defined the "Momentum Effect" as the ROI driver in social media. This is a MUST READ report for marketers entering this space (get it here) (Disclosure/mini-plug: my colleagues at TNS were one of three partners is executing the research, along with TRU and Marketing Evolution).

Will social networks have the backbone to turn down revenue is marketers demand types of placements that will alienat users? Will marketers learn to give up control and learn to become the kind of friend that social network users will welcome?

This will be the real story of 2008, not Bubble 2.0.

Posted by Jim Nail on December 5, 2007 at 03:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Memo to Bob Parsons: You are so wrong!

Dear Bob:

I read that you have decided that it is not worth it to promote GoDaddy's Super Bowl ad ahead of the game as you have in the past. I say, the strategy of promoting early isn't wrong -- your execution last year was flawed! Tune in to my webinar tomorrow with the Advertising Research Foundation and I'll show you the proof!

Posted by Jim Nail on December 3, 2007 at 02:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

© 2008 TNS Cymfony. All Rights Reserved.