The Quisenblog

Recent research revealed that 70% of smart phone users are never more than three feet from their phones. Their smart phone is the first thing they check in the morning and the last thing they check before going to bed (sound familiar?).

People’s relationships with their smart phones is one example of how the “always on” culture of contemporary life is affecting us. Where once we had the ability to be “in touch” 24/7, now we’re expected to be. What used to be considered “down times” are now opportunities to check in or catch up.

One side affect of the “always on” society is an affliction some social psychologists have dubbed the “Fear Of Missing Out” (FOMO). This refers to the blend of anxiety, guilt and irritation we may experience while checking email, clicking through to links from our Twitter stream or seeing who’s checked in around us on Foursquare.

Deep down, we know that at some point, the technology that keeps us connected ends up serving as more of a distraction. We feel the pangs of wanting to disconnect. But then we think, what if I miss something?

How’s this for irony: the very technology that connects us with so much has us fearing we’re not connected enough. In this short video from Fast Company, author Scott Belsky refers to this as “Reactive Workflow.” Reactive Workflow comes about because of effort it takes to deal with all the stimulation that comes to us, primarily via new technologies.

One of the things that happens in our reliance on technology is we cease to be creators and instead become responders. We may be linked to our world 24/7, but is our work getting any better?

What ever happened to thinking time? To the ebb and flow of life? To the idea of self-reflection? Traditionally this “down time” gave thoughts and perspectives time to gestate. It was a powerful ingredient in the problem solving recipe.

Most of what we do via today’s new communications platforms is a reaction to something else. We might be checking our email ten times an hour, but we’re not creating nearly as much as we used to. Or as we should.

As marketers, there are two edges to the Fear-Of-Missing-Out sword. First, the realization that we can easily succumb to it, and spend our precious time in reactive mode as opposed to creative mode. And secondly, that the people we’re trying to reach with our communications are struggling with the same issues.

The best way I can think of to approach this from a communications standpoint is to keep things simple. Messaging. Products. Promises. Don’t ask customers to jump through a lot of hoops. Be relevant. And be authentically helpful.

Most importantly, we can keep ourselves from falling into the FOMO trap. Don’t be afraid to power down from time to time just to give yourself some space. If you didn’t look at your email until 10 a.m., would the world really come to a screeching halt?

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m feeling the need to check my email.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, New Media, On Customers, Social Media, customer experience always on, Fear of missing out, FOMO, message clutter, stress, time waster

Remember when your grade school principal used to threaten you with the idea that your transgressions would go on your “permanent record?” As school kids, we all envisioned this “permanent record” as a granite slab that duly recorded every spit wad, hair pull and rubber band gun for all mankind to see.

Thanks to the Internet, there is another form of a “permanent record”: once something is said online, it’s being indexed by the major search engines. And when you Google search a company, an organization or an individual, what you get is a long list of relevant postings regarding that company or person.

The much ballyhooed permanent record.

The good news is, even though we may not be able to control all the online content out there that pertains to us, we still have an opportunity to “manage” it.

Here are five things you can do to manage your reputation online:

1) Accept that knowledge is power. If you don’t know what is being said, you won’t be able to address it. Make it a best practice to survey major social networks and blogs for comments about your company, products or competitors. Free tools such as Google Alerts and SocialMention.com can help you get started.

Too often, companies don’t like to even admit that negative things are being said about their brand. Their attitude seems to be, “If I ignore it, maybe everybody else will, too.” Reality check: they won’t.

2) Take steps to “organize the speech.” While you can’t control what people are saying about you, you can organize that speech by making sure your “good stuff” indexes high, that you add fresh, interesting content on a regular basis and that you correctly “claim” the listings (Google Places and Yelp! for example) that you are entitled to.

3) Don’t be shy about rationally responding to the not-so-good stuff. And do it with an attitude of “helping.” By “respond,” we’re not talking about arguing, justifying or trying to bribe commentators into pacification. It is more of an acknowledgment that you’ve heard the person, and you are sincere in your attempt to help them work through their issues.

While it’s understandable to think of Social Media as a dialogue with many, actually, it is a one-on-one conversation that takes place in front of a very large audience. Once your community sees how you deal with comments—both positive and negative—they’ll have a fuller view of you. For a crash course in how NOT to do this, check out this experience Kathi Kruse wrote about regarding her experience with Hertz Rent-a-Car.

4) Reach out to the people and groups that love your brand. Getting others to talk about your brand, whether on your pages or elsewhere, is a terrific way to get positive comments indexed. Embrace the people who love your brand and challenging them to speak up and share the good word.

5) Check your Google results regularly, and regularly add new dynamic content to the mix. Google doesn’t index websites, it indexes “pages.” So whenever you add a new content page to your blog, you’re giving Google one more opportunity to help you show up in a positive light.

It pays to regularly to a “Google check” of your brand and other trademarks to see what’s out there. If you come across some less-than-flattering comments about some aspect of your organization or its services, indirectly answer them by writing a blog post that provides your point of view on the matter. There’s a pretty good chance your retort will show up in the same search as the original negative content.

The advantage of knowing what’s being said about you, good and bad, is that it gives you an opportunity to respond immediately. You have a lot invested in your good name. It’s worth taking a few pro-active measures to protect it.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy answering negative comments, negative comments, online reputation, reputation management

Pretty obvious question, you say?

Once upon a time, naming your competition was pretty simple. Your competitors were the businesses in your market area that sold the same sort of products or services as you. But thanks to the Internet (more specifically Google), all that’s changed.

Now your competition isn’t so much who you say it is. It’s who Google says it is.

When your key word search terms are entered, who shows up? Is it the “usual suspects” you’ve been going toe-to-toe with for quite some time? Or are there new “competitors” (online or offline) that show up in the search?

Whichever is the case, before you can figure out how to take on your competition, you first have to know who they are.

For the sake of simplicity, here are four different types of competitors it pays to consider:

1. Brick-and-Mortar Competition
These are the competitors you have a pretty good handle on. They’re the ones you compete with on a fairly regular basis. If you’re Staples, your brick-and-mortar competitors are mom-and-pop stationery stores, as well as chains such as OfficeMax and OfficeDepot. Chances are you know these guys pretty well, and you’ve gotten quite adept at competing head-to-head.

2. Competition That Ranks For Your Keywords
Thanks to the Internet, it’s not just local companies you need to worry about. You also have to be aware of your search competitors – the businesses that are stealing customers by ranking for the keywords you want to be found for. The Internet doesn’t care if Jenny’s Book Emporium is run out of her parent’s basement in Nogales, AZ. If Jenny’s ranking higher on the page for your search terms than you are, tough luck. There’s a pretty good shot she’s going to steal some business that under other circumstances would likely come your way.

Let’s go back to our Staples example.

If you’re Staples and you want to rank for “hanging file folders,” your competition isn’t just the brick and mortar guys. You’re also up against Amazon, The Container Store, Walmart, Sam’s Club and who-knows-else. There doesn’t need to be a physical location within 200 miles of your storefront. If their website is showing up above yours (or comparable to yours) in the search results, they’re a direct competitor.

3. Competitors Whose Social Media Pages Rank For Your Keywords
Like most organizations, you’ve probably got a website. You might even have a Facebook page. Maybe even a LinkedIn business page. But what about the competitors who are seemingly everywhere in Social Media? They blog, they contribute to industry forums, they comment on articles. They post videos on YouTube and photos on Picasa. Keep in mind that Google indexes each and every one of these pages. And the more dynamic the content (the more frequently it is updated), the higher it will generally rank, usually against the very words you’re hoping to be found with.

This is a whole new category of “search competitor”: those who get in through the side door while everyone is trying to push through the front. This is a big reason why it’s so important to have a meaningful presence in as many social platforms as you can manage, and why all digital assets related to your brand need to be optimized for search.

4. “Share of Buzz” Competitors
Thanks to social media, there’s another class of nagging competitor to think about – the ones who are winning in the “Share of Voice” battle. These are the businesses that sell similar products or services as you but who seem to be involved in every social conversation out there. People are tweeting their stuff, sharing their links on Facebook, talking up their promotions and referencing their videos or SlideShare presentations in conversations all across the web.

Bottom line, your competitors are no longer just the names you’ve always known; your competition is anyone who gets themselves in front of your customer’s line of sight.

Once you’re aware of the volume of competition you truly have, you can take action to come out on top. Yes, a big part of that is to focus on a sound SEO strategy (more on that here). And it’s also important to have a meaningful presence across several platforms. But more than that, it is important that you truly understand the value your customers consistently say they receive from you that is unique and meaningful. And turn that value proposition into a Brand Vision that is reflected throughout your organization and your communications.

Just as you compete with your local brick-and-mortar types by being uniquely “you,” so too can you successfully compete with virtual entities—as long as you narrowly focus on what you do best.

Heck, you might even show up in your competition’s searches and steal a few sales from them.

If you’d like to read more about competing with search engine competition, I recommend checking out this thoughtful blog post from TopRank.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Media, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy brand vision, competition, keywords, new competitors, SEO, SEO strategy

That’s a question a lot of businesses are asking.

Do one-day daily deals from Groupon, Living Social and the myriad of copycat group buying sites deliver new repeat customers? Do they add incremental profit to the bottom line? Do they allow you to generate income from unused capacity?

Or are they money-losing propositions that create ill will among regular customers and attract only opportunists who’ll never show up again?

Chances are, the answer you get probably depends on who you talk to.

The major group buying sites have only been around since the fall of 2008. And while they currently boast of heavy participation (Groupon alone claims 55 million North American subscribers, of which at least 16 million have purchased at least one Groupon), we really haven’t been able to ascertain how effective Groupons are as a marketing tool.

Now, however, a few pertinent studies have been released that, while not conclusive, at least give us some hints about how customers and businesses view Groupon-like deals.

A survey conducted by Utpal M. Dholakia at Rice University revealed that new customers made up more than 77% of deal buyers for the sites studied. All spent over the deal value and, on average, about 20% became repeat customers. And a ForeSee Results study in June showed that 62% of deal purchasers are either non-customers, lapsed customers or infrequent customers, which bolsters the position that Groupons don’t just cannibalize full-price customers.

In perhaps the most interesting study, conducted by ConsumerSearch.com and the About Group, 67% of daily deal consumers claimed to have gone back to businesses where they had previously used a daily deal. In this survey, 48% of daily deal buyers were new customers, and in the case of restaurants, 83% ended up recommending that restaurant to family or friends.

I’m sure more comprehensive research will be forthcoming shortly, and what it will show is anyone’s guess. It’s safe to say, however, that at least for some businesses, the tactic of offering a Groupon or group-buying discount could pay off. So should you take the leap?

Before you do, I’d advise you to utilize some best practices. The standard Groupon deal is half off or more the everyday price. Of the other 50%, it’s split between the issuer and Groupon. So in general, Groupons seem to work for products that have huge margins, minimal incremental costs or when inventory is not an issue. And ideally, you’ll be offering a product or service that people will have use for over and over. Offering 50% off a yoga class makes sense. Offering 50% off auto body work might not.

If you’re new to Groupon, consider limiting the number of Groupons you’ll sell. Determine what the minimum is that Groupon will issue, and start there. If you see it’s a success, then you can always sign up for another one.

Another thing you could do is be creative in your offerings. Instead of just a straight “50% off” Groupon, consider putting together a special package, or a his-and-her special.

Also, consider how you’ll handle regular customers who now pay full price. One strategy could be to send an email to your very best customers, and offer them the same deal, without going through Groupon (that way you’ll be able to pocket the 25% that would go to them). Even if they opt not to participate, they will appreciate the thought, and will feel somewhat special.

Above all, recognize that Groupons are a way for people to try you out. Front line personnel can fall into the trap of viewing Grouponers as transients, so be sure to re-enforce with them that by creating an amazing experience for these trial customers, you’re setting yourself up to grow a new wave of repeat customers, loyal customers and advocates.

We’d love to hear your experiences of using Groupon, either as an issuer or as a redeemer. Let us know your opinion in the comments.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Social Media, customer experience, strategy effective marketing tactics, group buying sites, Groupon, groupon research, Living Social

Google’s recent launch (to a beta crowd, of sorts) of Google+ has been greeted by Social Media bloggers and critics variously as Social Media’s Next Big Thing, as the quintessential way to integrate search and social, and in typical SocMed bluster, “A Facebook Killer.” (Social Media types are nothing if not hyperbolic.) One writer even described Google+ as a “Purpose-Built Annex,” whatever the heck that is.

As for me, I’m not sure exactly where Google+ fits in. But I sure feel like I could do without it.

That must sound like heresy coming from someone who spends quite a bit of his day working with and advising clients regarding Social Media. Especially since it comes from such a proven heavyweight as Google. But truth be told, I’m involved up to here in Social Media. My personal Social Media ‘Inbox’ is currently full. I’m active on Twitter. I participate in a variety of LinkedIn groups. I blog. I get notifications up the yin-yang from Google Alerts. I’m active in online discussions, and regularly contribute to industry sites or comment on articles.

I have a SlideShare page, a YouTube channel and an RSS reader. And yes, I spend at least as much time on Facebook as the average 16-year-old. So excuse me for not doing cartwheels about nurturing and keeping up with one more platform.

Sorry, Google+.

I can’t help but wonder if the world at large is sort of in the same boat. Do we all suffer from a form of Social Media overload? Recent statistics show that aside from time spent on Facebook, the average American actually spends less time online than she did last year. A lot less (9%, to be exact). Part of this I surmise to be because we’ve narrowed down our online world. But another could be we’ve reached the saturation point.

So while the social media pundits seem intent on comparing Google+ with Facebook, my stance is that its true competition is the status quo. Remember how your mother used to wisely say “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” Unless most folks find that something is “broke” in their Social Media worlds, I suspect they won’t be in a hurry to fix it.

Who knows, I could be all wet. Maybe the world is salivating at the chance to join Google+ and create “circles.” Maybe this is the “Social Media Magic Bullet” marketers have been waiting for.

Or, maybe it will collapse under the weight of its own hype.

This entertaining video was intended to show how Google+ will enhance your Social Media experience.

My takeaway was one of dread. There’s even something a little Big Brotherly towards the end, the idea that “You don’t have to choose Google+; Google+ has already chosen you.”

Ick. But judge for yourself. And let me know if this is something you’re planning on joining.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey New Media, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media, customer experience Facebook, Google, social media hangover, socialmedia overload

Evidently a lot of folks out there think creative briefs are a waste of time.

That’s the conclusion you could draw from the response to this article over at AdAge.com. Why would so many feel creative briefs have become irrelevant, and who is to blame? Some blame clients for cramming too much information in them, or for being too “boilerplate.” Others blame agencies for not being creative enough in their approach to briefs. Others say briefs don’t take into concern the prospect’s point of view. One commenter even went so far as to argue “The brief is dead.”

It’s true the “traditional” brief leaves much to be desired in these days when marketers are pushing more and more initiatives, talking to more different audiences and being involved in a variety of Social Media platforms that require creative decisions to be made on the fly. The tightly-defined “packaged-goods-era” creative brief (that spelled out everything from the exact size of an ad to what “mandatories” need to be addressed) is way too confining when it comes to developing integrated multi-platform campaigns and programs. What if, for instance, the creative team determines the best solution to a client’s problem isn’t necessarily a print ad, but a web video series? Will the brief let them consider it?

Yet without a brief, how will agencies and clients stay on the same page?

For an industry that supposedly embraces “change” and “bold moves,” it’s interesting how a lot of us have gotten locked into approaching problems the same old way, even when we have evidence that way is no longer working. It’s time agencies and clients reconsidered the brief to once again to make it a useful tool in these days of multi-channel dialogue.

Is there a prescription out there to make the creative brief relevant once again?

Our view is that the traditional agency creative brief is a throw-back to a time when it was assumed that we could manipulate consumer behavior by crafting the “right” message. The overriding question behind every brief was “What do we have to say to make you buy from us?”

Today, the consumer has access to many sources of information (not just the marketer) and in general, she puts less weight on what a marketer says than what she hears from friends, family and her community. As a result, successful marketing is not primarily about communication anymore; it is about transparently demonstrating an understanding of a consumer’s problems and concerns and addressing them in a unique, meaningful way. The question for marketers today is “Who do we have to BE in order to attract you as a customer.” It involves operations as well as marketing, as well as an on-going communication stream. In order to lead to success, any iteration of a creative brief must acknowledge this truth.

The next generation creative brief should start with the organization’s Brand Vision, which answers the question “What’s the one thing we want people to feel (and think of) when our name is mentioned, that is unique, meaningful and true.” Putting this thought at the forefront of every brief, whether for a branding ad campaign, a social media promotion or a price-and-item ad, assures that whatever the communication, it will be crafted with the intention that receivers will walk away with the same emotional take away. The brief itself needs to be acknowledged as a flexible document that serves as the “starting point” for both agency and client.

Yesterday’s “campaigns” have given way to today’s “content platforms.” As conditions on the ground change, and as new opportunities or obstacles surface, so, too does the nature of communication.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy Ad Age, brand vision, content platform, creative brief, multi-channel dialogue

I had the pleasure of hosting a Content Development Workshop through Greater Spokane Inc.’s BizStreet this week. Thought I’d share the PowerPoint deck with you all. Covers things like developing a content strategy, where to source quality content and includes some content best practices (which I pretty much learned the hard way).

I look forward to your comments.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Research, Social Media, customer experience, strategy blu berry, brand vision, content strategy, curated content, huppins, reimagined content, social media content

Social Media naysayers have been having a field day these past few weeks. Last month, after Beverage Digest reported that Pepsi’s flagship brand slipped into third place (behind Coca Cola’s Diet Coke brand) in the cola wars, a meme started making its rounds that money spent in Social Media was a waste, at least as far as major brands are concerned.

As proof, Social Media detractors point to two prominent marketers who cast their lot in Social Media and (apparently) came up losers—Pepsi and Burger King.

Some background: this past year, Pepsi opted not to advertise in the Super Bowl, instead embarking on the ambitious “Pepsi Refresh” project in Social Media. And Burger King, in lieu of matching McDonald’s dollar-for-dollar in paid media, instead leaned heavily on such noted Social Media campaigns as the Whopper Sacrifice and the Subservient Chicken.

And here we are, with Pepsi sales down 5% year/year, and the brand mired in third place. And Burger King having just experienced its sixth consecutive quarter of declining sales.

Some of the loudest voices in the room would have you believe it’s all Social Media’s fault.

If only things were that cause-and-effect.

The truth is, looking at the situations from the 10,000 foot level, just as you’d suspect, both marketers have challenges that go well beyond the decision of whether or not to tweet regularly or start a Facebook page. Both entered the recession #2 in a market with a strong dominant leader (in dicey economic times, market leaders can be expected to outperform the category to everyone else’s detriment). Both marketers suffered unsettling turnover in marketing and management. And most telling, both have made questionable marketing moves beyond the scope of Social Media. Pepsi, once the choice of the “new generation,” lost that mantle to emerging products such as Mountain Dew, Gatorade and the assorted energy drinks, then compounded matters by going through its much-lambasted multi-million dollar Peter Arnell logo redesign (exemplified by the much-mocked memo which infamously equated the new design with “the Earth’s magnetic fields and the sun’s radiation”). And Burger King? The marketer used nearly 60% of its ad budget in late 2010 in an ill-fated attempt to unseat McDonald’s dominance in the breakfast daypart. That fiasco made Gallipoli look like a stand-off.

And interestingly enough, at the current time, both marketers are operating without a Chief Marketing Officer. I’d wager that the lack of a strong visionary marketing leader has more to do with the brands’ struggles than decisions as to where it spends its marketing bucks.

Not to totally absolve Pepsi and Burger King’s Social media efforts of all blame. For starters, Social Media proponents were way too ebullient about the efforts, and heaped much praise on them before they ever generated an inkling of a result. And the strategies of both (if you can call them that) were questionable, in my opinion.

Regarding the Pepsi Refresh Project, the marketer seemed way more interested in the “crowdsourcing” part of the project than the actual good works being done. It seemed more like a marketing ploy than an authentic “cause marketing” campaign. Pepsi didn’t focus on a single unifying cause, like safe drinking water to the world or shoes for kids in developing nations. The emphasis on the crowdsourcing element proved controversial as well. There were well-publicized allegations of cheating. The projects touted by well-organized and well-connected non-profits benefited at the expense of average grass-roots consumers. Nowhere was this more evident that in the Gulf Refresh Project launched just after the BP oil spill. You can read about the issues we found with that project here.

And for Burger King? While its Social Media efforts were entertaining, product-focused and well-integrated into its media advertising, it all had a very tactical feel to it. Burger King has long lacked a cohesive strategic platform. What does the brand stand for? I’d bet if you asked 10 consumers, you might get 10 different answers.

Sorry, but “If only they’d have been in the Super Bowl” is not a grown-up response to the ails of Pepsi and Burger King. Marketers who think in terms of “either/or” when it comes to paid media versus Social Media are embarrassingly out of touch. Social Media, when used correctly and integrated into offline efforts, add depth to and amplify a winning strategy. (Great examples of this include the recent Evian “Rollerskaing Babies” and Old Spice “Man on a Horse” campaigns). Conversely, without a winning strategy, Social Media (as with any other media) are reduced to a series of “throw-it-against-the-wall” tactics. Just like an aimless logo redesign or a tagline-du-jour.

And speaking of Content Strategy (how’s that for a segue?), that will be what I’m covering in the upcoming intensive Social Media workshop through GSI’s BizStreet on April 28. If you’re interested, find out more and register here. Hope to see you there.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy burger king, Pepsi refresh, peter arnell, social media detractors, social media integration, whopper sacrifice

If you and I found ourselves standing on a street corner, waiting for the light to change, and it struck you to ask me, “What’s the one thing I could do that might help make my Social Media efforts more successful?,” in the few seconds I had to answer before the light changed, my response would likely be this:

“Think like a Business-to-Business marketer.”

Traditional marketers often struggle with Social Media because it doesn’t operate by the traditional rules we learned regarding marketing, advertising and promotion. Traditionally, we were able to buy attention. To be successful with Social Media, we have to earn it.

The problem with looking at Social Media through traditional marketing lenses is that it’s too seductive to view them primarily as additional channels to deliver brand messages. To get out of this mindset, it might help to approach Social Media with the mindset of a B-to-B marketer.

What do B-to-B marketers do that B-to-C’ers could learn from? Consider this list:

1) B-to-B’ers build relationships. B-to-B purchase decisions generally take much longer than B-to-C because there are multiple people or teams that need to have buy-in. Throwing your message out once or even a handful of times won’t be enough to close the sale. Building a relationship built on trust will.

2) B-to-B’ers focus on providing solutions, not just making sales. They get to know their customers and what their needs really are, then use those needs as a platform for conversation and conversion.

3) B-to-B’ers enable the customer to have her own “period of discovery.” In a B-to-B environment, generally the customer comes to you after she’s done a good deal of homework. She’s already “short-listed” you. The lead time or “courtship-phase” demands the marketer to constantly engage, communicate and maintain a dialogue with the prospective customer.

4) The B-to-B’er rewards loyalty. Once B-to-B clients make a purchase decision, they tend to be more loyal and spend more money.  Marketers who dedicate more of their resources to keeping current customers happy generally do quite well in the B-to-B environment.

5) B-to-B’ers enable their customers to get input from others. Successful case studies are important. First-person testimonials are important. Actual customer experiences are important.

6) The B-to-B’er understands that not all buyers are the same. Customers may come to them for different reasons, and different stakeholders in the organization are looking for different things. A one-size-fits-all pitch is unlikely to work across the board. Understanding the whims and agendas of all stakeholders allows the B-to-B marketer to directly address each need.

7) The B-to-B’er enables prospects to find out as much about them as they can. B-to-B purchase decisions are made in a very logical, deliberate way with a strong ROI case to justify them, whereas often B-to-C purchases are based on emotion.   Prospects often must justify their purchase decision to investors, bosses, or boards of directors.

Social Media, managed thoughtfully, can help any organization, whether B-to-B or B-to-C, better engage with its customers in each of these ways.

A brief side note: regular readers of this blog are familiar the importance of generating and publishing quality content on an ongoing basis. I will be hosting a three-hour workshop on Developing Killer Content on April 28^th through Greater Spokane Inc.’s BIZ Street series. You can get more information on the workshop and register here. Or just drop me a line.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey New Media, On Clients, On Customers, Social Media, Uncategorized, customer experience B-to-B, building trust, business-to-business, relationships, Social Media

Let me just say this up front: Charlie Sheen sucks at Social Media.

Yes, he passed the two million follower mark on Twitter in record time. Yes, he’s been a “trending topic” on the service for weeks. And yes, by some accounts, he’s earning a reported $10,000 per tweet.

You, with your tidy little community of a couple hundred might be thinking,
“I should suck so bad.”

The reason I hold Charlie up as a Social Media poser is his lack of honoring the first word of the term: social. For brands, Social Media is the one place you can actually hear from customers in real time and engage with them on a deeper level than you ever could in any off-line media. Social Media is your opportunity to amplify your strategy, add value to your customers’ experiences and drive customer loyalty and evangelism.

This, Charlie ain’t doing. Like many big names (be it personalities or brands) that amassed large followings before doing anything of note, Charlie’s doing little more than borrowing an audience. People are attracted by the name, and intrigued by what may follow. It’s up to the “followee” (Charlie in this case) to further engage with the audience. Some do this well: Social Media-savvy brands like Mountain Dew, Southwest Airlines or Best Buy are prime examples of this. But most don’t do much. They fail to take advantage of the “social” aspect of Social Media. (Do you think if you Direct Messaged Charlie that he’d actually respond?)

If you look at who has the largest followings on Social Media platforms, they’re all recognizable names. Celebrities, sports heroes, politicians. Even among brands, it’s fame that drives a following. Starbucks, Nike, Pepsi, The New York Times and Red Bull all gathered hundreds of thousands of followers before they ever did anything meaningful.

Does this mean that fame is the golden ticket to Social Media success? That the only way to be an A-list player in the Social Media space is to come into it with a big name? That if you don’t already have a “big name” that you’re destined to reside in the sparsely populated fringes of Social Media?

If the only metric you’re interested in is the number of “followers,” then that just may be the case. But by thinking of Social Media only in terms of “likes,” you, like Charlie, would be missing out on the benefits of Social Media.

The question worth asking is, regardless of the size of your audience, how are you engaging them? What are you doing to keep them “tuned in?” How are your efforts making their experiences better or improving your offerings? In Charlie’s case, he’s paid to push brand messages to his followers (hence the $10,000 per tweet). How long until his audience tires of this and moves on to the next shiny object?

Every Social Media practitioner, like every musician, wants to play to a packed house. But it’s far better to play to a coffee house crowd that gets you and is engaged with you than an auditorium of strangers sitting on their hands waiting for you to play “Proud Mary.”

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey New Media, On Customers, Ramblings, Social Media, customer experience Charlie Sheen, intrusion, push messages, scoial media audience