Goodbye, Process of the Past; Hello, Trust and Engagement

Posted on March 2, 2010 by Guest Blogger

by Jodi Petrich, Senior Director at Fast Horse

More brands are turning to social media to engage consumers. Social media are a great tool for launching new products or services, sharing promotional offers, hosting contests or simply connecting with loyal fans.

One big challenge is that the approval process in many companies doesn’t lend itself well to social media. For example, consider the process involved in the development of a print or TV ad. A strategy is created and a creative brief is written; creative teams develop concepts; concepts and copy are routed to clients and legal; clients and legal provide input; and the concepts are revised and approved.

It’s a process that (perhaps) works when creating an ad, but it lessens the opportunity for impact when applied to social media. The intent of social media is to be interactive, to share news in a timely fashion, to be authentic and relevant, and to allow for instantaneous or even spontaneous connectivity. Processes of the past simply aren’t nimble enough to allow companies to take full advantage of all that social media offers.

But what is the right process for new media? Take this tale of two brands on Facebook.

  • Brand A is mired in heavy process. Anyone who wishes to post content on the page must fill out and submit a request form a minimum of five days in advance of when the post will run. There are only five posts allowed per day, and only one per region, which can post on select days. The brand has a great following, but users are the recipients of very calculated messages.
  • Brand B has no process. In turn, many of its individual properties have created their own Facebook pages and post content freely. There isn’t a consistent brand presence, there are no standards in place to guide postings, and postings are often completely irrelevant to the business (actual Tweet example from a franchisee: “I got to work today and have on two different shoes. LOL!”).

On the one end, the five-day process ensures that messages are appropriate and approved by everyone, but it doesn’t allow the opportunity to react or respond to news or announcements that might help the brand be more relevant.

On the other end, the lack of process allows freedom and flexibility but creates the risk of ultimately hurting the brand’s reputation.

Social media can be a powerful tool for brands when used appropriately and timely. Doing so requires a level of flexibility and the ability to let go of processes of the past. Should brands have a social media strategy? Absolutely. Should there be a process in place to ensure messages and content are brand appropriate? 100% yes. Should the social media content that brands produce be held to the same standards as traditional marketing? Even more so. Should every Tweet and Facebook post be routed for approval? That’s where things get sticky.

Every brand needs to develop its own comfort level, and the keys are trust and education. You trust your employees to represent your brand everyday, why shouldn’t you when it comes to social media? Consider taking the time to educate your team on the essential brand messages and character you wish to convey. Draft up some key brand attributes and circulate them widely. Let people know how you want your company or brand to be perceived. Then trust them to deliver the messages, just as they do every day in the off-line world.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

It's On: Southwest Savvy

Posted on January 1, 2010 by Dan Kelly

If you travel by air at all, I suspect that Southwest Airlines' "Bags Fly Free" campaign resonates a bit:

This is but one of many examples of Southwest Airlines' marketing and business savvy.  By all appearances, this is a company that exudes a love for its business, which necessarily requires a love for its customers.  It meets its customers where they are:  blogging, on YouTube, on Facebook, on Twitter, on TV, in print . . . you get the idea.  They are well known for using humor both in advertising and in providing services.  It is a company that is meeting its mission. 

Here's to more fun in 2010!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Unusual Suspects

Posted on December 31, 2009 by Brad Walz

Social media has become the must-have tool for every marketer and this tool is gaining popularity with every industry. For example, the insurance industry is typically known for more low-key advertising and marketing channels. However, companies like HCC Medical Services, LLC and Blue Cross Blue Shield have jumped on the social media band wagon. HCC Medical Services has redesigned its Web site to include a social media tool and a blog, and Blue Cross Blue Shield actively appears on Twitter and Facebook.

Social media allows nontraditional marketing innovators to get in front of an entirely new set of customers as well as a younger demographic. It can be difficult to measure the results of social media, but the fact that companies can attract followers on Twitter or fans on Facebook is impressive. On the other hand, sometimes the impact of social media is more clear. Some followers or fans will comment that the social media was a factor in their decision to purchase services or goods from the company. Additionally, some posts will comment on what the company is doing well and what it can improve.

However, to succeed with social media, companies need to have a plan for their social media tool. It is not enough to just be visible. Companies need to actively engage their followers and fans rather than use social media as a means to issue press releases.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Let's Play "Truth or Consequences": The New FTC Guides for Endorsements & Testimonials Bring Truth a Little Bit Closer

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Guest Blogger

We all would agree that “As Seen on TV” is one of the great brands of all time. The brilliant marketeers behind it recognized the extraordinary power of television – people believe as true what they see on TV.

Why that is I’m sure has been the subject of enumerable studies; after all it defines who we are as consumers and sets the stage for a marketplace where the phrase “targeted consumer” takes on real meaning. Between infomercials laden with celebrity endorsement, a tried and (sometimes) true tactic for moving people closer to their wallets coupled with compelling “just like my neighbor” testimonials, and home shopping networks with live celebrities and testimonials whose “it has to be true” quality rings true for millions of people, consumers are drawn to purchase like moths to a light.

The online world has taken this phenomenon and cranked it up a notch. The more modern version of “As Seen on TV”, its sister brand “As Seen on the Internet” – is an even more powerful lure. It is extraordinary how so many people believe that the “default” for the Internet is Truth, as if there were a mysterious group of censors and law enforcement officials who were reading everything found on the Internet to ensure that anything false or fraudulent automatically was removed. If only that were so.

Social networking has taken this propensity to believe anything electronically delivered to an even higher level. People tend to believe as true what others in their electronic neighborhoods say. This tends to be the case whatever the form of visual channel, from “expert” blogs in About.com, to the thousands of pseudo-news blogs, closed social environments like Facebook or MySpace, or in some form of IM (Include Twitter here). The stories of fraudulent promotion on Twitter already are legion. Add to this the hundreds, perhaps thousands of for-hire bloggers who will supply testimonials for a fee, and the potential for online, “As Seen on the Internet” consumer deception increases dramatically.

It was inevitable that at some point the FTC would have to step in. The Federal Trade Commission historically has taken consumer fraud seriously, but the massive amounts of online fraud, ranging from paid for false testimonials to the most severe forms of identity theft , have created a new vigor in that agency.

On December 1, 2009, new Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Guides”), with heightened requirements for bloggers to disclose affiliations with sponsors of those endorsements, go into effect.  See FTC Press Release dated October 5, 2009, here.  The text of the Guides, 16 CFR Part 235, is available, here.  Although these Guides are advisory in nature and do not expand the scope of liability under Section 5, they are intended to provide guidance as to how the FTC would apply governing law to various fact patterns.

The foundation for these Guides is the definition of “Endorsement” or “Testimonial” as “…any advertising message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser.” When such testimonial or endorsement exist, the new Guides come into play. These include some of the following:

Consumer Testimonials:

  • Must be “unsolicited”;
  • Must be truthful;
  • Must not contain any representations that would be deceptive, or could not be substantiated, if made directly by the advertiser;
  • Must be typical of what a consumer can reasonably expect;
  • or must clearly and conspicuously disclose what typical results would be;
  • No more “results not typical” which was a safe harbor under the old Guides.

Celebrity Endorsements:

  • Must be truthful; Celebrities always had an obligation to use the product and make truthful claims; the Guides clarify that a celebrity now has an obligation to ensure that the claims made are accurate.
  • Need not disclose celebrity is being paid if public will reasonably assume they are; but do need to disclose connection if in non-traditional media (a talk show for example), if not obvious celebrity is being compensated;

Expert/Organization Endorsements:

  • The expert qualifications must match the endorsement; can’t use a veterinarian to endorse a children's cold remedy.
  • If an advertisement refers to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the advertiser, the advertiser’s relationship with the research organization should be disclosed in the advertisement.

Within the realm of “consumer testimonials” are blogger testimonials. The Guides are intended to address “professional” bloggers who receive consideration for the blogged testimonial, not the occasional individual personal testimonials, like a mom who used a particular cake mix she mentions. 

Of significance is that it is immaterial if the advertiser cannot or does not control the blogger. The issue is whether the statements are sponsored. Whether messages conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers are “endorsements” will be decided by the FTC on a case-by-case basis. The fundamental question is whether, when viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statements can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and, therefore, an “advertising message.”

There are many other rules and examples identified in the Guides, and are a “must read’ for anyone using testimonials or endorsements in their marketing mix. 

The truth in advertising just got a little closer to the truth. 

—Steven M. Weinberg, Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Viral Marketing: Building the Lore

Posted on August 25, 2009 by Guest Blogger

So what is viral marketing? The simple answer is: a marketing strategy that encourages people to pass along a marketing message. Some will argue it’s a fancy word for word-of-mouth marketing. Others insist it has to take place online—through blogs, Twitter and such. But no matter how you define it, the beauty of a well thought out and executed viral marketing campaign can help make a mountain out of a molehill. Or a beloved local icon out of a fiberglass sculpture—as was the case when the Lake Creature arrived in Minneapolis.

When the Lake Creature appeared in the waters of Lake Harriet, we knew it would cause a ripple among folks in the area. But it was the strategic viral marketing campaign that turned it from a ripple to a tidal wave among greater Minneapolis residents and area visitors.   As visitors to Lake Harriet took in the creature’s beauty, their imaginations ran wild: Who brought it here? And what it was doing in the community? For the first week, the only clue was a sign at the lake with the address to a non-branded micro site where, upon logging in, residents could continue the fun by helping build the mystical creature’s lore.

That same week, the chatter on Twitter proved people were taking their conversations about the creature from the shoreline to online. “There’s a creature in Minneapolis,” they said. “Lake Harriet has its very own Nessy.” Some passed along the microsite address, others just speculated as to what the creature was doing in the Cities and why. Within minutes of posting their tweets, the powerful influencers would receive a message from the Lake Creature inviting them to follow her on Twitter and help direct people to the microsite to submit photos and stories. 

So when the Minneapolis Parks Foundation stepped forward in mid-July to announce it was behind the project and hoped the creature’s presence would help enhance the lives of residents and bring awareness to Minneapolis’ beautiful parks, most would say “mission accomplished.” In the first week alone the Lake Creature gained more than 150 followers on Twitter; nearly 7,000 people visited her site and the effort generated more than 3 million media impressions. She even has her own Facebook fan page. Some would say that’s a viral marketing fairy tale—and we won’t disagree.

—Allison Checco, Fast Horse

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Shack by Any Other Name...

Posted on August 18, 2009 by Guest Blogger

RadioShack recently introduced a new name, rebranding its stores "The Shack", which now adorns their retail environment and marketing efforts.

The change was prompted by a desire to update the 88-year-old brand as they transition to mobile phone and wireless products without losing brand equity and mind-share, according to RadioShack. As Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times mused, "For a company that wants to talk up its expertise in mobile phones, no one seems to have noticed that mobile phones are radios!"

To officially roll out the new, shortened, and supposedly hipper moniker, RadioShack staged "The Shack Summer Netogether" in NY and SF August 6 - 8, broadcasting the event live via "massive laptops" located in Times Square and Justin Herman Plaza, respectively. Video was streamed live on their Facebook page and their redesigned web site.

The current trend to truncate brand names is puzzling. Is this an attempt to beguile the text-message obsessed youth market, where everything is "abrv8d"? Or drive up sales through brand-brevity because we lack long attention spans?

I understand distilling a brand to its essence. Coke and FedEx are good examples, but Pizza Hut and Circuit City are not.

This past June, Pizza Hut sliced "Pizza" from its boxes and select stores, creating "The Hut". Perhaps this was to reflect the expanded menu, which includes pasta and other non-pizza items, or to be more in sync with the "text message generation" as stated by the Pizza hut Chief Marketing Officer Brian Niccol. But "The Hut" lacks uniqueness, and the food half of their name, which defines them. Is this really something they can own? What other huts can you think of? The jury is still out with this decision.

As for Circuit City, which shuttered its 567 U.S. stores last January, truncating its name didn't provide a panacea for its fiscal ills. In 2007, a new store format was introduced with a new, shorter name -- "The City". The new, "circuit-less" name didn't result in solvency. It is interesting to note that after Systemax Inc. acquired the brand, the Circuit City moniker was reinstituted.

Back to "The Shack". For RadioShack there is a need to compete with Best Buy, the numero uno of electronics retailers. But I doubt we’ll see Best Buy rebrand itself as "Buy" anytime soon.

One of the weaknesses with the word “shack” is its alternative meaning, shanty, a crude hut or cabin. This is hardly a positive association for a venerable, and once omnipresent brand, trying to freshen up its image.

"The Shack" also faces derogatory non-trademark meanings, much like Kool-Aid and Spam have acquired, as discussed by Steve Baird here. One blogger suggested images of a dark and isolated place where very bad things happen, and it is a little too close to "The Shaft" for my liking.

Cycling fans such as me wonder about the recently announced Team RadioShack Pro-Tour cycling team. Will Lance Armstrong, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, and Andreas Klöden actually end up riding for "Team Shack"?

Can RadioShack truly own "The Shack"? What should Shaq have to say about this? Should he become the next spokesman for "The Shack" in between Comcast ads? Or maybe the B-52s could grind out a revised version of Love Shack?

A name or a logo is not a brand. The entire experience you have with a company defines the brand. So changing the name and doing "thumbthing" cute with the logo, isn't addressing the brand holistically.

I question the wisdom of truncating RadioShack at a time the company is trying to resurrect its faltering brand, particularly if "The Shack" moniker lends itself to negative brand associations. This is a time for clarity, not confusion or misdirection.

Performing a "truncatomy" to gain relevancy risks generating non-trademark meanings sure to vex RadioShack brand managers and lawyers, and ultimately, perhaps, render "The Shack" irrelevant.

—Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Really, Facebook? Really?

Posted on July 25, 2009 by Brent Lorentz

Hot on the heels of Dan Kelly's prediction of the eventual fall of social networking sites, it seems that Facebook has embroiled itself in another controversy.  The upshot of the most recent story is that Facebook is essentially using its power of cyber eminent domain to sieze and use photos posted by users for advertisements unless they change their privacy settings.

For me, this raises two questions:  The first is, whether or not Facebook users might have an action under right of publicity laws.  Generally, a right of publicity claim requires the plaintiff prove that somebody (1) appropriated plaintiff’s name and likeness to their advantage, (2) without plaintiff's consent; and (3) resulting injury to the plaintiff.  Typically, these claims are limited to celebrities because non-famous people usually don't have value in their name and likeness that the misappropriation injures.  However, its not unthinkable to believe that there is a conceivable theory of injury for Facebook users to pursue these claims.  (On a side note, I'm sure Facebook's terms of use give them some level of authorization to use photos, so that would be a likely hurdle as well.)  

The second question is, does Facebook really need this revenue?  It seems like the outcry from users would be pretty predictable.  Although the public expects and accepts a certain level of encroachment by advertisement, there's a line.  If you cross that line, you risk alienating a substantial portion of your audience.  The stakes are even higher when the people you are alienating are responsible for the content on the site.  If Facebook really has to go this far, it would seem that social networking sites are doomed to fail.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Hide in Plain Sight: Using Social Networking Tools to Protect Your Personal Brand

Posted on July 21, 2009 by Guest Blogger

I just did a Google search of myself. Save one entry, the entire first page of results, including my website, blog, LinkedIn profile, FaceBook page and other information was content created and controlled by me. Had you done that search before I set up various social networking pages a year ago, you would have found the amusing photo of me in the early 90s with a lot of blond hair, still hosted on a website of a friend in St. Cloud.

While that photo is not exactly baring it all in Cancun, it is also not what I want to show to anyone looking to hire me. Jumping into social networking has many potential pitfalls but it gives you the opportunity to control more of the early-page search results for yourself and your company. While I agree with Dan Kelly’s earlier post (The Rise and Fall of Social Networks?) that social networking sites are “clunky, inefficient and inhospitable,” they are one of the most critical spaces to take control of our reputations and brands.

Setting up a firm page on FaceBook or a LinkedIn profile takes control of your personal or business brand. Establishing social networking policies (among my advice is never FaceBook or Twitter after even one martini) addresses the privacy and discretion gap that is a big part of inter-generational issues. Boomers and above tend to think sharing pictures of themselves on the information highway is similar to putting their personal details on a billboard. They have a “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” mentality. Millennials will happily share photos of themselves at the proverbial slots, whooping it up.

Hoping social networking will go away while letting your unhappy staff or customers control the cyber reputation conversation is naïve. Take control of your personal brand through social networking and hide in plain sight.

— Wendy Nemitz, Principal, Ingenuity Marketing Group

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Rise and Fall of Online Social Networks?

Posted on July 10, 2009 by Dan Kelly

Four weeks ago, I blogged about FaceBook's ill-advised move to allow unique username URLs.  Some time between then and now, FaceBook removed the page where trademark owners could defensively register their marks to prevent others from choosing such marks as user names.  Now, a rights holder's only recourse is to submit this form to report an infringing user name. 

In the course of my research of FaceBook, I have found that actually using FaceBook for affirmatively useful business purposes, such as setting up a business account or creating an ad, can be a mind-numbingly difficult task.  FaceBook's shortcomings, I think, are neatly addressed in this frustrated FaceBook user's help question:  "does anyone know how to actually get help from facebook help?"

Two weeks ago, I read news reports of MySpace's woes.  (And by the way, has anyone ever remarked on the similarities of the MySpace and FaceBook landing pages?)  This week, I finally gave in and actually tried to follow some feeds on Twitter, much to my frustration--it is ridiculously clunky. 

So, much as this may paint me as a new "new media" luddite, I must ask:  What is the fascination with these so-called "social networking" web sites?  As far as I can tell, they are clunky, inefficient, inhospitable time-wasters.  Unless these sites become savvy (and quickly) to some simple principles of usability and customer service, I doubt that any one of them will really become viable and succeed over the long haul.  As illustrated by the likes of Amazon.com, Google, Craigslist, Drudge Report, and others, there are many, many ways to succeed on the Internet, but social networking may not be one of them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time to Defend your Rights on Facebook

Posted on June 12, 2009 by Dan Kelly

Mark ImageThis past Tuesday, June 9, Facebook, Inc. announced on its blog that, as of 12:01 EDT on Saturday, June 13 (that's tomorrow), Facebook users will be able to register for unique user names on a first-come, first-served basis.  Each user name will be incorporated into a personalized URL of the format http://www.facebook.com/firstname.lastname or http://www.facebook.com/username, depending upon the user name.

Trademark or other proprietary name holders may fill out a form at this page to prevent Facebook users from registering particular marks or names as usernames under this scheme.  Facebook has also set up a FAQ page here to answer some questions about these new user names, and provides a form here by which a trademark owner can challenge someone else's use of a protected intellectual property right. 

David Berkowitz has additional details over at Ad Age. 

Commentary after the jump . . .

Starting with the completely insufficient four day notice regarding this change, this strikes me as a questionable effort on the part of Facebook that will involve a long, bumpy road.  For anyone who has seen the due diligence involved in erecting a new top-level domain name space, addressing the rights of IP holders is a long, complex, and sensitive process typically addressed in a months-long sunrise period, not four days notice.

I can find no explanation of how Facebook intends to arbitrate disputes among legitimate rights holders and "squatters," much less disputes among those with competing legitimate rights.  Perhaps Facebook has a plan for the numerous conflicts that are likely to arise under this regime, but I think that it will instead get a speedy education on many of the complexities of trademark law!
Tags: , , ,