MyTechnologyCompany.com

It was only a matter of time to see some game developer leverage the power of the internet. That's what Rockstar Games is doing with the GTA IV release. The rise of gaming platforms connecting to the internet creates many cool options for game developers. Grand Theft Auto is pulling your GTA IV stats from your platform machine and posting them to a central website. Now, XBox and Playstation players can compare how "bad" they are - Legends will be made! This is a small first step of what is possible. What if we create a character for a web-based game. In order to generate some traction and fan support the game could be an ad or micro-payment based. Then we could create advanced platform games that will allow the player to use his/her web character. We could create geo-location games for the mobile phone and imports character data. Everything could be connected and the internet could serve as the nucleus of gaming franchises. Obviously this is not a simple undertaking. Rockstar is doing a good thing by keeping it simple and identifying the potential problems. That knowledge will ready them to create an even more encompassing game environment where gamers can create criminal kingpins whose exploits span platforms, mobile and the internet - Now that is Legendary. That is my little "video game fan boy" spiel for the next few months. Anyone else have ideas on where gaming could go?

I am sure someone smarter than me thought of this, but I wanted to talk about the goals of marketing initiatives. All marketing initiatives should strive to connect with your customers. If one doesn't, you must seriously question its importance and relevance to your company goals. Customer connection can occur at many different levels. This is where the Hierarchy of Customer Engagement comes in. It is a nice way of classifying how you hope to connect with your customer. Over time, it will become clear what initiatives are best for what type of connection.

Looking at the model, we see that message is the lowest level of customer engagement. It is simply delivering a message to the customer like a TV advertisement. The next level, engage, is where the company engages and interacts with the customers. Where message was a one-way communication, engage is a two-way dialog. In its simplest form, it is a 1-800 number for customer comments. At its most complex, it leverages the internet, social networking, and new tools like widgets to create an on-going relationship with the consumer. Beyond engage is purchase. Here our goal is move the customer to purchase the product. It may contain parts of message and engage, but the overriding goal is to convert the sale. Now, you may argue that the overriding goal of message and engage is to convert a sale, but I think of the previous two as more of a way to strengthen brand through communication. For example, a blog with comments is more about discussing product issues and is not focused on the sale. Obviously, the overarching goal of a blog strategy is that it will build customer trust that will result in a sale, but it is not the immediate purpose of the initiative. At the highest level, we try to get consumers to endorse our products to their friends. Common sense tells us this is the most powerful type of marketing - who doesn't ask friends for recommendations? Achieving this level of customer connection requires a strong multiple-initiative strategy. The endorsements need to be optional to the customer (Sorry, Facebook co-opting customer endorsements don't work), therefore they are difficult to get - but it is also this optional character that makes them so powerful! Different company strategies require different levels of customer engagement. For example, if your company relies on a strong brand, some of its strategies should try to engage and endorse its customers. If you just sell a commodity, then message and purchase is all you need - tell them the price and how to buy. Anyways, I encourage you to look at your company marketing initiatives and ask "At what level are we trying to connect with our customers?" Then ask, "Do this match with our corporate strategy?" Are there any other levels of customer connection? Let me know in the comments.

Here is a first draft of an internet marketing model that has been kicking around in my head. The impetus was that I was asked to prepare a Internet Marketing Plan and I could not find a template of what to include. So here is what I started with (click the picture for a better quality picture). Before even starting a internet marketing plan, you should have already done an competitive and market analysis of the industry (here's my competitive analysis template). That should help define your firm's business model which, in turn, influences the firm's marketing strategy. It is the firm marketing strategy that determines your internet marketing strategies. In their simplest form, I view internet marketing strategies as how can I use the internet to accomplish some marketing goal. The marketing goal of "building brand awareness" requires a different internet strategy than "converting sales". What ever the goal, you can break it up into sub-goals with some form of measurement attached to them. For each goal, your strategy should have a number of initiatives with their own accompanying measurements that will drive you to the goal. Initiatives will consist of a number of internal, external, and technological components that can be used (for a good list of potential internal and external internet marketing see this post by Jeremiah Owyang). Another key thing to remember that all marketing initiatives should strive to connect with a customer in one of the levels of the Hierarchy of Customer Engagement. Confused yet? I apologize. Here is an example of an initiative:

• Goal: Reinforce brand image as athletic and action orientated.
• Sub-Goal #1: Increase customer engagement on website
• Initiative A: Video Content Initiative
• Metrics: Unique Visitors per month, Visits/Unique Visitor per month, Video Views
• Targets:
  • Raise unique visitors per month to 50,000 by year one
  • Raise Visits/Unique per month to 2.5 by year one
  • Achieve 500,000 on site video views by year one
  Company will create a videos of its celebrity athlete endorsers and post them to the website. Atleast one two minute video must be posted each week. During high profile competitions, company will post 5 two minute videos within 3 days of competition ending. Videos will be posted to an internal web page and the home page will present the most recent video updates.

So we took a company marketing goal, applied a internet marketing sub-goal, then identified an initiative with internal and technology components that will help us achieve that goal. Then, we identified how would we track success of the initiative. Note this initiative is designed to deliver a message to the consumer (and probably engage them). I hope this helps you visualize how to think about the internet and your business. I am sure you have better ideas than me, let me know your internet marketing plan best practices in the comments!

When dealing with online marketing metrics, I am a big fan of Avinash Kaushik. One of his brilliant simple insights is that most marketers need to supplement their website metrics with a simple survey asked to customer as they depart the website. Recently, he worked with iPerceptions to create a free tool (4Q) that anyone can use to learn what visitors want from their website and how well they meet those wants. The survey is only 4 questions. The brevity makes customers more likely to complete the survey and not feel inconvenienced by the experience. With this free tool, the only excuse anyone in charge of their company website has not to learn more about their consumers is indifference.

I admit I wasn't the first on this train, but gradually the power of Twitter is winning me over. I am slowly exploring this space and I hope people who find my blog interesting and Twitter themselves follow me. I will follow you back. Here is my quick and dirty pitch for Twitter:

• The art of influence is becoming less about messages and more about discussions.
  • That means essays were replaced by memo's which were replaced by emails. which were replaced by instant messaging and so on.
• The ease of which the internet enables communication has made competition between networks of businesses as opposed to businesses.
  • It is no longer GM against Toyota. It is GM and its supplier/research network against Toyota's network.
• Companies that work most effectively with these networks will gain a competitive advantage in this new world.
• Twitter enables a mass conversation with your network (or your customers) better than any other technology.

That last point is the bottom line. Why did I start Twittering. I started blogging to share my point of view and hopefully influence people. My initial thoughts were that some issue would occur, everyone would blog, comment on others' blogs, and hopefully through that discussion some consensus would be reached. What I discovered was that with Twitter in play, the influencing was done well before anyone blogged. The discussion occurred on Twitter. It clarified peoples' thoughts. Then, they blogged their opinion. It makes complete sense. In a way, a blog post is a short essay or memo. In the hierarchy of communication, it is meant to convey a well thought out position. It makes less sense to use the blog to post stream of conscious thoughts on an issue with the goal of clarifying later because you are posting it in a format that implies a thoughtful argument or point of view. Twitter is perfect for stream of conscious discussions to clarify your thoughts. And what better place to clarify your thoughts than in a global discussion with your network! My recommendation is register. Review how other people use the tool. Slowly grow your user base and experiment with different types of communications. I am willing to bet if you give it a fair chance, it will not disappoint you.

Josh Bernoff of Forrestor's Research posted a blog that social applications will thrive in a recession. I have no problem with his conclusions, but he makes a controversial statement that awareness advertising is ineffective in a recession and that marketers should consider advertising that targets the consideration phase with which I take issue. I will argue that awareness advertising is precisely the type of advertising a marketer should pursue in a recession. Let's start with Josh's statement about awareness advertising:

Advertising (or as we often call it, "shouting") is mostly about generating awareness and reinforcing brands. In a recession, ordinary consumers like you and me aren't as willing to spend. Sure, we'll be aware of the product, but that doesn't make so much difference when you're worried about your future.

and let's see his point about the consideration phase:

You may resist advertising if your finances are tight, but if your bud tells you that new movie is really worth seeing or that the Gap has the cutest new tops, that's more persuasive than advertising. Basically, in a recession, the consideration phase is more important than awareness

Did you see the problem here? In the awareness comment he notes that in a recession that consumers are not willing to spend, then he promotes consideration phase advertising to encourage purchase. The problem is that the pot these ads are competing for are much smaller than usual and definitely much smaller that it will be when the economy picks up. Now, I am not saying consideration advertising is not important - you still need to sell and friend recommendations are important - but, many consumer decisions in a recession are made based on price and value. In a thriving economy, if we get 3 friend recommendations for restaurants, we may actually go to all three in a month. In a recession, we may not even go to one. My key point here is that in a recession immediate conversion should not be your primary goal; Awareness should be your primary goal.

In a recession, it is less about what consumers buy today and more what will they buy when they start spending again. Research shows that in markets with a great deal of choice where the product is not a commodity consumers tend to buy recognizable brands. What better time to build brand than in a recession. As Josh observes, "In the 2001 recession, US advertising dropped 9% and Internet advertising plummeted 27%". A drop in ad spending means a drop in ad prices as less companies are bidding up the prices. This makes awareness ads relatively cheaper in a recession than in a boom cycle. Therefore, awareness advertising in a recession has two compelling benefits: 1) It is relatively inexpensive to build brand recognition; and 2) it will improve your brand's positioning for when the economy recovers.

If we agree that awareness advertising is important in a recession (and I hope I persuaded you), then I want to comment on challenges with awareness advertising on the internet. The internet has allowed granular level tracking that traditional advertising never could. This has made advertisers and analysts in this new age focused on click-thru rates or some other type of conversion. I remember hearing Jason Calacanis in an episode of Steve Gilmor's The Gang state social networking ads are no good because they don't convert! It is a fascinating comment that is shared by many people, but I would like to examine the underlying assumptions of the comment. The comment assumes conversion is the only successful result for advertisements. Search got people focused on this, but I argue that it is incorrect. Why does Pepsi spend so much money on TV ads? Why do people buy space on bulletin boards in Times Square? Why does Starbucks invest so much in ensuring every Starbuck's location has the same look and feel? These do not directly cause conversions. What they do is build brand that raises the chances their good will be selected over others when people make purchases.

This article is not meant to discuss the power of brand, but I ask that you take it as true. Now, I ask if building brand is so powerful, why do ads on the edges of Facebook must have click-thru's in order to be considered successful. Often (brand) awareness advertising just wants to get impressions. Expose consumers to enough impressions and sales should increase. They do it all the time for TV ads. Proctor & Gamble would calculate the frequency of an ads appearance multiplied by the % of the product's target audience that would be exposed to the ad to get Gross Rating Points. They would use these GRPs to predict future sales. I believe that CTM ads on sites like Facebook need to be considered in the same manner. Accept that they are not made to convert, but to build brand awareness (a potentially more powerful effect).

The great news is that the cost of these ads are incredibly low, thus providing a great source of value to a smart marketer. Last point is to remember that the style of awareness advertising should be different from the style of conversion advertising. You are just trying to reinforce brand image - it is a subconscious effect. Conversion's demand engagement from a consumer. Different styles for different goals - be aware. I appologize for the length and scope of this article, but I strongly feel it is an important discussion to have. I encourage other marketers to share their thoughts.

UPDATE: February 22, 2008 - I just saw a Feb 14th post by Aaron Wall who also advocates that companies need different strategies when advertising on social media sites. He suggests that companies find sites that relate to their brand and co-brand with them. I agree this is another strategy that companies can look at. At the heart of it, it is trying to build brand awareness. Great post.

Duncan Watts has challenged the idea that there are these mythical "influencers" out there who, if marketers just reach, will propel a marketing campaign to viral status. He is challenging a mutation of Malcom Gladwell's Tipping Point argument that raised the idea of influencers. In reality, Gladwell argued that epidemic ideas are spread through a combination of three types of individuals (Mavens, Connectors, and Salesmen). The mutation of the argument has shaped some marketing thinking that they must identify and target key influencers. I think Watt's point is that it is misguided to focus on finding a few key individuals and that ideas are spread more linearly without the need of a catalyst.

Seth Godin correctly adds to this argument that Gladwell and Watts are both right. He adds that ideas spread because passionate people love the idea. This all ties into my earlier post that viral marketing is an overly misused statement. I argued make the campaign resonate with people and everything else will take care of itself. Sure there are tools you can use to make it easier for passionate people to spread your message, but your message must get people passionate about it. And thats what a good marketer does.

P.S. There is passion in Gladwell's three individual types common to epidemics. Mavens are passionate about the topic; Connectors are passionate about linking with people; and Salesmen are passionate about selling an idea. If your message resonates with any of those types, you should improve the chance that your message will spread virally.

A classic example of how new technologies of the internet will force companies to rethink their preconceptions on how to manage brand. Here is a site of Ford Mustang enthusiasts who put together a calendar of pictures of their favorite member cars. Ford's lawyers have notified the internet company that offers the printing services, Cafe Press, that they must cease printing the calendar as the shots of the Mustangs violate Ford's Trademarks. Now technically they are correct. In the past, people would try to mass print calendars of automobiles (or create toys) and try to distribute them through retail stores. Ford is obligated to protect their trademarks and would take action to make them stop.

Now, today's internet and printing technologies have thrown a wrinkle into this strategy - the emergence of print on demand shops on the internet that enables people to connect and socialize in ways we could not dream of 15 years ago. These technologies are changing the game of brand management. As Jeremy Owyang astutely points out, the internet is causing brands to become decentralized. Our customers are taking ownership of our brand identity! This lack of control can be quite scary for traditional companies, but they need to consider the power of it. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will reinforce a brand identity like its customers promoting it. Real customers talking about and acting out what the brand means to them will resonate with potential customers in a way that no amount of prime time advertising will accomplish (think about Harely Davidson tattoos). Companies just need the leadership to let go.

There are some legal issues around this strategy. The law says that a owner of a trademark must always control its trademark. It also puts a positive obligation to enforce its trademark rights. Failure to do these things can result in the company losing the trademark. While there is no knowing how the courts would actually rule, a solution may be to have a public permission to use the brand in products subject to certain rules (doesn't reflect poorly on the brand, limits on sales, or profits must go to charity, etc.). These published rules could demonstrate that the company still controls its brand. It could still take action on any act that violates those rules. Might this policy have unintended consequences? Maybe. But at least it considers the technological realities of our society rather than create PR nightmares with a companies most devoted fans. Any thoughts on where brand management is headed in this area or what we should be doing?

"VIRAL"

This word has become a pet peeve of mine as I see it used more and more frequently in the tech blogs that I read. Everyone talks about the marketing campaign designed to be viral; or you must have a viral marketing campaign; or even a "how to" build a viral marketing campaign. Enough!

By definition every marketing campaign is designed to deliver a message. Ideally, it travels through as many mediums as possible with word of mouth being a very desirable medium. While you can try some techniques to help a campaign spread by word of mouth (or now technology allows it to spread even quicker through social networks), to say a campaign is designed to be viral is redundant because it is the goal of any marketing campaign to have its message disseminated as effectively as possible. Remember the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" commercial or Budweiser's "Waz Up" commercial? Eventually, they were spread virally as people talked about them around the "water cooler".

Point is you can't design a viral campaign. You need to design an effective marketing campaign and hope that in your distribution of that campaign it spreads virally! While you can take some action to improve it's chances of being virally spread, the viral part is in the sole hands of the public. So can we please stop using the terms "viral" and "campaign" together? I hope you see that they are redundant.

Today, we are discovering that the new generation is abandoning email for a more immediate form of communication

Twenty years ago, we could not imagine communication without a trip to the post office. Five years ago we all thought email was the future of communication. Today, we are discovering that the new generation is abandoning email for a more immediate form of communication (like Twitter, Instant Messaging, and Text Messaging). Have a look at Chad Lorenz's excellent overview of this phenomenon in an article for Slate. Communication is becoming less about delivering a comprehensive message and more about having a conversation!

Originally, we organized our thoughts and constructed a well drafted message designed to influence the reader. Think about how we draft an essay. Now, think about how we draft an email - a little less organized, but, generally, it is designed to deliver a message. Now consider instant messaging. There is no message designed to influence the reader; it is a conversation - a give and take.

While I doubt the well constructed and delivered message will ever disappear, there is no doubt that going forward conversations will grow in importance. Think about the implications for marketing. Traditional marketing is to design a message that will influence the consumer. Taking it to our twenty year ago example, this would be in the form of a direct mailer letter. It is also a TV commercial or print ad; a more visual message, but a message nonetheless. How does this relate to a conversation? It doesn't. There is no give and take. While I doubt marketers will ever stop constructing their message (in fact that could be disastrous), they will need to initiate a conversation if they want to reach these younger generations.

How do marketers converse with their customers? Transform corporate websites to facilitate a dialogue with consumers; go to where these groups communicate such as social networking sites and open a free dialogue with them; or build a twitter network (see a good guide here). Jeremy Owyang has been trumpeting the need for conversation and I definitely recommend that you check him out.

Now, there are real risks to a conversation. Consumers will tell you what they really think in a public forum. This inspires fear in traditional marketers, leading companies to try to control the conversation (ie, remove negative posts) which will only create distrust and hurt the brand. The companies that get it, acknowledge the negative feedback and think about how they can address it in a constructive manner. Think about it - a company actually listening to a customer in a public environment. This builds trust and loyalty among your customers.

If a company can cross that bridge of fear to initiate a conversation with its consumers, then think of the opportunities. Companies pay outrageous sums of money to market research firms to tell them about their customers. A conversation will give you insights beyond what any survey will tell you (and you can still conduct formal surveys in these conversations). A better understanding of your consumer can direct companies to improving their products and their market success. I am pretty sure there will be an immediate reaction from the "experienced" marketer that this is "bunk" and that the negative risks to a brand outweigh the upside. To them I say "talk to me in five years".