Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category

It used to be that you could get away with just a website. Then you needed way to collect email addresses so that people could subscribe to it. Then those forward-looking social media pros started saying that RSS was the future of communications, then Twitter. Whatever the medium, its always been about making it easy for your audience to get updates from your website.

With that in mind, I set up a Facebook Page for BlogCampaigning. All it will really do is pull in posts from here, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t become a Fan.

-Parker

On Saturday, June 12, I uploaded a series of vintage NASA photos to Flickr.

I wrote a blog post about how I found the photos, Stumbled the Flickr set, and also emailed a link to the set to one of my favorite blogs, io9.

When I woke up on Sunday morning, the set had over 10,000 views. As the day went on, and I kept checking the stats, it continued to gain more views.

What happened?

io9 wrote about the photos, referring to them as “the motherlode of space porn” and linking to the set on Flickr.

That post received approximately 52 different tweets, while a link to the set itself has received almost 90 tweets.

Jens told me he was going to submit it to Boingboing and Reddit, but he was too lazy to do either.

According to a little search I did, it was also shared on Facebook 82 times, got 45 “Likes” and 35 comments.

Since then, 52 different people have added me as a contact on Flickr (you can too: I’m ParkerNow there as well). My photos have had over 50 comments and tons of them have been made favorites by other people. Even better is that some of the Flickr people commenting are incredibly knowledgeable about the photos and are adding information, like when the photo was taken and who is in it (as below):

Admittedly, the photos weren’t really “mine” to begin with (as various comments have pointed out, better quality versions of some of the pictures are available on the NASA website and are in the public domain), but I wanted to put them in a public space and the whole thing has turned out to be a pretty rewarding experience.

On a related note, this graphic of “Your Flickr Stats Explained” is pretty good.

-Parker

Did you watch the Brazil/North Korea game today? I caught part of it while I was eating a late lunch and thought that Maicon’s goal was amazing.

Nike agreed and (not a brand to miss a beat) did an excellent job of capitalizing on it by posting an image of Maicon with the caption “Know Your Angles. Write The Future.” on the Nike Football Facebook page.

No kind of planning or content calendar can take that into account. An update like that with a response of over 1500 “Likes” on Facebook and more than 300 comments means that Nike is in tune with its audience and able to deliver what will create conversation amongst them.

In short, Nike knows its angles.

Between this and the previous post I wrote about the Pitch Perfect series of mixes, you’re probably thinking I’ve gone a bit nuts for Nike.

The truth is that I’ve worn Nike shoes for years (they fit my feet well), and currently have about four active pairs (cleats, indoor soccer, running, casual). If they’re going to keep me entertained as well, what’s not to love?

-Parker

Producing high-quality, shareable content is the way to get noticed these days, and it doesn’t have to be that hard. There are tons of musicians and artists out there with huge followings, and the inability of the record industry to deal with this in the internet era means that these artists are looking for other options.

Corporate sponsorship is one of those options, and a great example of this is Nike Sportswear’s Pitch Perfect series of albums:

With full-on football (aka soccer) mania about to consume the minds and hearts of billions around the globe, The FADER wanted to express what the sport means to us. Faced with that seemingly daunting task, we decided to focus on what we know—music, art and culture—and view the game through the creative endeavors inspired by it. To that end, The FADER has joined with Nike Sportswear to present our collaborative project, Pitch Perfect.

Starting on June 1, 2010, and stretching over the next several weeks, we will give you new music from all over the world via continental mixtapes made by top selectors, limited edition screen-printed posters inspired by football’s global reach, and, best of all, a special documentary series filmed in South Africa by The FADER crew as football fans deluge the country. While we’re there, Nike Sportswear and The FADER will present a live music event on June 16 at Nike’s brand new Football Training Center in Soweto, featuring artists from all over Africa, that will also be streamed live on nikesportswear.com and thefader.com/pitchperfect so that all those who couldn’t make it to South Africa can feel like they did.

I’ve argued before that this kind of promotion is a win-win-win: fans get to listen to the music they like; the artists get paid for their work and gain new fans; and the brand is able to connect with their audience in a meaningful way.

Scion (the car company) has done something similar, and so has the Cartoon Network with their ATL-RMX album (probably the best mix of southern hip-hop and electronic music you’re likely to find outside of The Hood Internet).

…And as I was wrapping up this post, I realized that Starbucks has teamed up with iTunes for a similar deal. From Frappucino.com/iTunes:

“Starbucks has created a free music mix to complement your Frappuccino^® beverage. Featuring electrifying summertime favorites ranging from Frightened Rabbit to Hot Chip, your free Frappuccino^® Beverage Music Mix is available to download on iTunes now!”

How do you feel about this model for sponsoring musicians? Do you like it when your artists team up with brands you may or may not like?

Call me old-fashioned, but I have a hard time giving my credit card number and purchase pattern information to every Tom, Dick, or Harry who asks for it. I’m even less thrilled about having that information broadcast to all of my beloved friends and followers online.

In the last year, services like Blippy, which connect directly to your credit card transactions and post them onto your social networks for the world to see, have become popular ways of sharing personal information within social networks. It makes me cringe. Status symbol or not, I don’t feel comfortable sharing that information or linking my credit card account so publicly. (I still black out my purchasing information when I use my bills as receipts.) If I feel the world needs to know that I spent $150 on a pair of jeans, I’ll post that information myself, thank-you very much.

A couple of days ago, TechCrunch reported on a soon-to-launch service called Offermatic, which asks users to give up their credit card information and transactions in return for savings based on recent purchases. For example, if you recently purchased a kitchen table, you might get an offer for $10 off kitchenware at Ikea. I’m all for saving money, and actually LOVE the daily Groupon offers that I get. I also agree that this is definitely an interesting and highly targeted idea, ideal for advertisers looking to push their product or service, but I still don’t feel comfortable allowing a third party to sort through and analyze my credit transactions (anonymously or not). Personally, I can’t see myself signing up for Offermatic or Blippy anytime soon. I can’t shake the paranoia that some other analysis of my data may be taking place in the back end, behind the scenes.

What do you think? Too Big-Brothery for you? Or are you more from the camp of “meh, what’s the worst that could happen?”

I don’t usually pay much attention to advertisements—billboards, television spots, print ads—but when I’m driving, I often listen to the radio (when I don’t throw on an old Nirvana cassette), and besides tuning in to college and public stations, there’s no good way to avoid listening to adverts. And like on television, they often repeat during every commercial break. Nonetheless, it took me several listens and a contextual conversation to make the connection I’m about to describe.

A recent Bochner Eye Institute radio spot says something like, “We know you could pay less for eye surgery, but why would you? You’ve only got one pair of eyes.” (If anyone can point me to a recording of the advert, let me know.)

What they’re saying is clear: by using an eye surgeon or service that charges less, you’re putting your eyes at greater risk of complications or worse. They are trusting that consumers will pay a premium for a service that offers better quality and lower risk. It’s a long-term scheme: pay more now and worry less later.

The same argument applies to many consumer products and services: you can pay more for a better car and (hopefully) it will have lower maintenance and fuel costs down the road; you can pay more up front for a better new home and it is less likely to sink into the ground; you can pay more for quality clothes and they will last longer and maybe even remain in fashion.

It’s a risky game, presenting these arguments to consumers in the age of convenience and cost-consciousness, but it must appeal to enough of us that some companies continue to employ it. I think it’s especially effective for cars and homes, and occasionally effective for luxury or semi-premium items, like watches and dishes. But it’s mostly ineffective for more everyday items, like clothes and furniture, and it’s very ineffective in the face of competing campaigns from fast and convenience food companies.

But back to the eyes: they are an integral part of the body, providing probably the most important sense in our visually over-stimulated culture. In this sense, they are us, and without them, we are nothing. I suppose I’ve answered my own question here, but still: if this type of advertising does work (if only in relation to certain products or services with recognizably high value, why doesn’t it work with respect to environmental concerns?

I think (I guess it’s just hope, really) it’s clear to pretty much everyone that our environment is more truly beneficial than our eyes or any other body part a person could lose without dying. That is, without our environment, we are truly nothing.

Is it that environmentally focussed organizations and companies haven’t tried this line of argument? I don’t think this is true. Do they just not have enough money to get their message out to enough people? Possibly. Is it that we simply value the environment so little, or that we are incapable of seeing the value? Maybe they’re up against a short-term culture with a mindset that is just too fixed to change. Have we made ourselves disposable, and therefore not worth spending premium money on, like we would for a fancy car?

Tell me dear readers: why do people choose the cheap and low-quality product over the one that might last a life time or longer?

-Adam

Behind the scenes of BlogCampaigning, I’m often giving Jens a hard time for not contributing more often. Some of it is good-natured ribbing about how he’s lazy, some of it is a little more serious.

The reality is that for the past few months he’s been busy finishing up his PhD, and is now on a speaking tour of Australia, so I really shouldn’t be so hard on him. (Espen, however, has no excuses.)

Part of Jens’s hard work has paid off in the form of recognition by the Sydney Morning Herald, which published an excerpt from the abstract of one of his presentations:

“For Europeans, as the Swiss banker father of a friend of mine once said, Australians are the plebeians of the Western world.

“The clichés were presented by the editor-in-chief of the German broadsheet Die Welt, Thomas Schmid, last year in an editorial. He argued that Australia lacks civilisation, everyone is dressed informally, there is a lack of social differentiation and the only thing setting the upper class apart from the middle is its higher income.

“It is an empty place with nothing in the middle—in geography nor identity. These are prejudices Australians have had to deal with almost since the arrival of the First Fleet, a fate they shared with other New World societies such as the United States.”

Read the full article here.

-Parker

“A couple of years ago the social media press release was all the rage”, writes Mark Evans. He suggests that PR and marketing people believed, “the social media release would revolutionize everything”.

As someone who was on the front lines of the Social Media Press Release development for a couple of years, I have no idea what he is talking about.

I think that, yes, there was a little bit of excitement amongst a segment of social media nerds (myself included) about how the SMR was a nice update to the traditional news release, but I’d hardly call it a “rage”.

Even now, with the Social Media Release business seemingly good for CNW Group (my former employer), Marketwire, Pitch Engine, and probably a lot of other companies, I’d still be hesitant to call it “raging”. (In the comments on Mark’s post, CNW’s Amanda Laird does point out that the SMR is CNW’s fastest growing product.)

As recently as last year at PodCamp, there was still confusion from people about what an SMR even was.

No one ever said the SMR would “revolutionize everything”.* If I remember correctly, most of the talk was about how the SMR was part of the evolution of the traditional press release. It was a natural move. Today, most people would agree that online newsrooms that can incorporate multimedia elements are where this has evolved to. I tend to agree with that, but I’d even say that a news release with links to multimedia content follows that same evolution.

In the comments on his post, Mark adds “personally, I’ve found that many clients are using micro-sites or creating Web pages that include a press release, high-res photos and graphics and video instead of using a social media press release.” If these micro-sites or web pages with news and multimedia content aren’t SMRs or a close relative, then I don’t know what they are. They certainly aren’t radically different.

What I do agree with Mark about is that the important part of media relations is the social part—the relationships with reporters, the reaching out to known contacts.

I’ve always advocated this approach, and I’m happy to see that CNW continues to do so. (A single tear rolled down my cheek when I read that blog post.) In fact, this approach is even embedded in the name of this tool—it is called a SOCIAL media release for a reason.

Maybe I’m wrong about all this, though. Maybe I did miss the SMR party a few years ago. Maybe the PR world has given up on providing the media with compelling images, audio, and easily shareable video. Maybe everyone has gone back to plain-text news releases, delivered via fax and horseback.

-Parker

*I was definitely pretty excited about the whole SMR thing when it first came out. If you can find evidence of me saying that it would “revolutionize” PR or news releases, I’ll buy you dinner. If you can find evidence of anyone else saying it would “revolutionize” PR or news releases, I’ll buy you a beer.

A few days ago, Jevon MacDonald wrote a post on StartupNorth advising startups to avoid using Public Relations agencies or Marketers to contact him on their behalf. While he was speaking about his site specifically, his statement suggests that hiring a PR firm means a startup’s priorities are “out of wack”.

I disagree. I don’t think that every startup needs a PR firm, but there are certainly many that do. Getting some early coverage can be key to getting investors, and PR firms can help with reaching the right audiences and helping the startup founder tell an interesting story about the company.

While some founders are probably great at writing and communicating, there are equally as many that aren’t. A PR agency can help draft emails, arrange interviews, and develop collateral. These are all things that PR pros excel at, and that would take away from time that a startup founder could probably spend working on the key element of their company.

Tim Lee wrote about a similar topic in a post titled PR Firm as The Anti-Signal, and I followed that one up, too.

What do you think? Should startups be hiring PR companies, or are they a waste of time?

-Parker

If you live in or near Toronto you’ve undoubtedly heard about the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC) recent blunders: sleeping employees, rude drivers stopping traffic and commuters for a coffee break, leadership problems, and raise hikes. The public is angry, and rightly so. It’s hard to find anyone who speaks highly of the service they receive in any capacity from the TTC. As public sentiment reaches an all time low, the TTC marcomm team and the newly formed Customer Service Advisory Panel have a serious uphill hike ahead of them.

While the climb may be an arduous one, it is not impossible, and the rewards at the top are well worth the ongoing efforts. Think of how much the commission would stand to earn if the public actually believed in, and wanted to use, its services. Below are some ideas that the TTC (and the panel) should consider as they strap on their climbing gear:

1. Take advantage of the public’s desire to communicate their frustrations. Tap into the channels they are using, listen to what they are saying, and actually respond, taking their ideas, comments and frustrations into account. Showing a little bit of genuine empathy can go a long way.

2. Be more transparent. Give an honest and ongoing account of where the TTC fees are going. Be honest about hikes, wages, and time lines for improvements. I don’t mind paying a little bit more or being slightly inconvenienced if I understand the reason behind it. Include a section on the website that shows what is going on—think graphics and visuals. I don’t want to read heavy text. Seeing is believing.

3. Use mobile communication applications and programs to highlight and reward the best drivers and penalize the worst. With the popularity of smartphones and location-based apps, it is easy for riders to weigh in on their drivers and experiences in real time. I have had some amazing drivers who absolutely deserve to be rewarded, and others who really shouldn’t be allowed to deal with people at all. Why not set up a public system to track this?

4. Nominate someone to be the official “Face of the TTC”. This figure should be someone the public trusts as a liaison between public needs and the inner workings of the commission. The customer service advisory panel is a great start, but there is a need for something longer term.

5. Make your marketing programs cost-effective. Use social media platforms and online sites to distribute communications and facilitate marketing programs. I want to know that my money is going in large part to improving the service, not the image.

These are just a few ideas; other cities like New York have set up multiple social media platforms and actually respond to questions and interact with their audience—check out New York City Transit’s Twitter feed and Facebook page, which actually has discussion and feedback. They have also opened up their data so that community members can design apps. They host contests for best apps each year and feature different ones on their website regularly. In contrast, I can’t even find the TTC social sites on their website (@TTCnotices and @bradTTC – Director of Communications).

What do you think? How would you change the TTC if you were given the ability to do so?