As a long-time P&L manager and strategic marketer for consumer businesses (aka agency client), I find this an interesting phrase to express a common thought about advertising investment, especially among digital/interactive agencies. This is speculation on my part, but I expect companies will ‘harvest’ savings from reduced investment in traditional (analog) advertising in the difficult business period ahead. I don’t think this will be a surprise to anyone. However, those savings, whenever they eventually again become added back to marketing budgets (2010?), will be cautiously invested …as pennies.
Retailers and Direct-to-Consumer businesses will react the most quickly, as their returns on investment have been impacted almost immediately. More traditional manufacturer/supplier advertisers, selling through retail trade partners, will continue to experience even disproportionately lower sales going into 2009, as many of their sales were ‘pre-booked’ into the Q4 holiday season (with retailers then carrying the greater inventory risk).
But where the phrase “analog dollars for digital pennies” has typically carried a sarcastic frustration amongst the digital marketing world, I think – my opinion – that this may now be a very positive opportunity for digital media. Less expensive, and more efficient, will be the orientation among advertisers going forward, like never before in recent years.
The likely result? Again, my opinion, but I see two important ramifications for marketing: First, big-dollar traditional media will be placed under tighter review for demonstrated benefit to any business. Nearer-term sales metrics, not consumer research scores, will be EVERYTHING. That will create a vacuum …an opportunity. So, and secondly, filling this opportunity, digital media, will benefit by focusing more on working harder with measurable results. However, unproven media that is only for sake of being ‘new’ won’t cut it. When dollars are tight, there is no need to hurry to be first into the latest media space (just like there is now no hurry to get back into the stock market). But digital media programs that demonstrate the ability to leverage a solid positioning with clear benefits to drive preference or response (and sales) in the marketplace, a USP, will get a very favorable review, if constructed as the most efficient investment in a challenging business environment.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Marketing: Humble Is The New Black
This was well-stated on a recent CNBC program.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27294922
Everything has changed in 45 days. We know this -- but the mere fact that we all know this now, so quickly -- indicates that we really have little idea as to the degree that everything has changed. Often, social changes that come this fast are BIG. (Consider December 8, 1941, where across the country, everywhere, men and women stood in line the very next day after Pearl Harbor to enlist.) Things have now changed more than we can comprehend, and younger marketers, who have only known a world of newer, faster and stronger up to this point, are caught like deer in headlights (and they may not even realize it yet). The American Dream is now at risk, we feel it, and there is no more room for unnecesary weight. (Think October was just an economic bump in the road? Think again. Ask someone with kids how their outlook has just changed for the future.)
We all know that much of what was ‘in’ is now ‘out.’ We can rattle off categories (e.g. automotive, food, clothing, retail stores, wine, etc.), and think about the brands, and think about the changes in brand leadership that will likely follow – feel free to share and post some of those thoughts here. The changes run far deeper than just over-simplified changes in brand leadership. Values have profoundly changed. It’s ironic, how fashion and politics have so closely followed the 70’s as of late, but only those who actually experienced the significant recession of 72-74 will understand how we are now also headed back to some of those core consumer and family values (beyond fashion and politics). Remember the ugly, boxy, Chrysler ‘K’ car? Why was anything like that ever so popular??? Pull up a chair.
Here’s a clue. Not only will there be a shift away from admiration for having the latest, newest, coolest thing, there will even be some growing social disdain for it. Even how you spend your time will receive scrutiny. Suddenly, every activity, every purchase will be quietly subject to tests of being frivolous, naïve or undeserved. It's a little less cool to share all the places in the world to where you may of traveled, when the person standing next to you may be worried about their job and foreclosure on their home. You get the idea. This may also create some shake-out within emerging areas of technology: Truly valued-added? Pass. Novelty? Fail. This would have happened over years anyway, but the shake-out may be ultra-fast now.
As for marketing, here’s food for thought: It will be interesting to see how some of the newly-minted youngster marketing folks do during this coming severe recession, as many were only in school during the last national recession in 91-93 (the tragedy of 9/11 hurt the local NYC economy, and the slow-down of 01-02 was really only more of an industry-specific Tech bubble contraction than anything else) ...this time, every angle in the marketing world has just changed 180*, with values and brand structures now significantly altered, and only veteran marketing and advertising leaders have seen and made these adjustments before...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27294922
Everything has changed in 45 days. We know this -- but the mere fact that we all know this now, so quickly -- indicates that we really have little idea as to the degree that everything has changed. Often, social changes that come this fast are BIG. (Consider December 8, 1941, where across the country, everywhere, men and women stood in line the very next day after Pearl Harbor to enlist.) Things have now changed more than we can comprehend, and younger marketers, who have only known a world of newer, faster and stronger up to this point, are caught like deer in headlights (and they may not even realize it yet). The American Dream is now at risk, we feel it, and there is no more room for unnecesary weight. (Think October was just an economic bump in the road? Think again. Ask someone with kids how their outlook has just changed for the future.)
We all know that much of what was ‘in’ is now ‘out.’ We can rattle off categories (e.g. automotive, food, clothing, retail stores, wine, etc.), and think about the brands, and think about the changes in brand leadership that will likely follow – feel free to share and post some of those thoughts here. The changes run far deeper than just over-simplified changes in brand leadership. Values have profoundly changed. It’s ironic, how fashion and politics have so closely followed the 70’s as of late, but only those who actually experienced the significant recession of 72-74 will understand how we are now also headed back to some of those core consumer and family values (beyond fashion and politics). Remember the ugly, boxy, Chrysler ‘K’ car? Why was anything like that ever so popular??? Pull up a chair.
Here’s a clue. Not only will there be a shift away from admiration for having the latest, newest, coolest thing, there will even be some growing social disdain for it. Even how you spend your time will receive scrutiny. Suddenly, every activity, every purchase will be quietly subject to tests of being frivolous, naïve or undeserved. It's a little less cool to share all the places in the world to where you may of traveled, when the person standing next to you may be worried about their job and foreclosure on their home. You get the idea. This may also create some shake-out within emerging areas of technology: Truly valued-added? Pass. Novelty? Fail. This would have happened over years anyway, but the shake-out may be ultra-fast now.
As for marketing, here’s food for thought: It will be interesting to see how some of the newly-minted youngster marketing folks do during this coming severe recession, as many were only in school during the last national recession in 91-93 (the tragedy of 9/11 hurt the local NYC economy, and the slow-down of 01-02 was really only more of an industry-specific Tech bubble contraction than anything else) ...this time, every angle in the marketing world has just changed 180*, with values and brand structures now significantly altered, and only veteran marketing and advertising leaders have seen and made these adjustments before...
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Social Media Embraces Advertising
Briefly, I'm sharing a blog here from Julia Boorstin, a CNBC writer that covers media issues affecting Wall Street, because it touches on some recent (but predictable) evolutions within 'mainstream' social media – namely, the need to make a buck.
“MySpace Music Signs On Advertisers”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26735667
If you’re on Facebook, no doubt you’ve experienced the recent format change. I have, and like many others, I have complained about it. There are several reasons behind the format change, but it does also appear to clear more space for – advertising (and marketing-oriented tools) – within each member profile. As a result, there is less display space, less ‘billboard’ effect for each profile, and more need to navigate through links and tabs to access each member’s content.
Again, this is only meant as a brief post, but the issue continues to confirm that in context of this explosion of social media, ‘advertising’ is NOT going away. Unequivocally, the collective social media conversation with, and among, consumers is game-changing. But advertising will continue to play a core role in that process – the Brand Ecosystem – and that, is an important consideration for marketers. No doubt, that advertising role/purpose will change and evolve to reconcile with social media and its role, but advertising isn’t going away just yet.
...How the role of advertising is changing, and needs to futher change, is a subject worthy of another post.
“MySpace Music Signs On Advertisers”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26735667
If you’re on Facebook, no doubt you’ve experienced the recent format change. I have, and like many others, I have complained about it. There are several reasons behind the format change, but it does also appear to clear more space for – advertising (and marketing-oriented tools) – within each member profile. As a result, there is less display space, less ‘billboard’ effect for each profile, and more need to navigate through links and tabs to access each member’s content.
Again, this is only meant as a brief post, but the issue continues to confirm that in context of this explosion of social media, ‘advertising’ is NOT going away. Unequivocally, the collective social media conversation with, and among, consumers is game-changing. But advertising will continue to play a core role in that process – the Brand Ecosystem – and that, is an important consideration for marketers. No doubt, that advertising role/purpose will change and evolve to reconcile with social media and its role, but advertising isn’t going away just yet.
...How the role of advertising is changing, and needs to futher change, is a subject worthy of another post.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Digital Merchandising
What are consumers searching for?
How to bring people in?
What items or areas should be emphasized?
How to design to build so as to optimize traffic flow?
How to drive conversion?
I am being a little coy here – to make a point. The above list may sound like a clumsy and vague dialogue geared toward SEM digital media and website design. But what if it doesn’t apply to that at all? What if I am merely talking about ‘merchandising’ at your local neighborhood retailer??? ...Some interesting similarities.
None of this constitutes branding – just as none of this even scratches the surface to define and position brands such as Best Buy, Costco, Gap, Target and Wal-Mart apart from one another. Merchandising is vital – it’s the daily operating life blood of any consumer-facing selling effort – but alone – it is not branding. Those retailers go far beyond featured sales, arrangement of merchandise and in-store display strategies to build their core brand franchises with consumers.
I know I'm still a bit obscure here, as 'digital merchandising' also has a more literal interpretation in the context of strategy and design for an e-commerce website. But I am actually driving at a broader context - that of consumers navigating the overall digital universe.
Let me digress for a moment.
In this digital DM response rate world of today, a lot of media tactics and ‘digital merchandising’ are being adopted by many professionals as new (and complete) marketing strategies. CFOs like response rates. They are predictable. When compared to investing in the consumer experience or fuzzy advertising or events and a host of other brand-building activities, a proven direct marketing response rate of 2% or 5% is sexy to a CFO. Good old-fashioned coupons have always carried such sex appeal in the marketing world. And lest you not forget, we’re not taking spam here. No way, spam is so yesterday, this is CRM. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist – I’m actually as big of an ambassador for CRM as you may find – when it is correctly comprehensive, true to the consumer’s lifestyle, and embodies the underlying fundamental positioning of a brand – but you must have brand positioning first.)
The fundamental point here is that any merchandising is a part, a valued part – but not the whole, of any consumer brand-building strategy. This is true in every context of the digital world, as it is and has been in the off-line world. Stating the more obvious: an X% response or conversion rate does not constitute brand strategy.
So the next time you address your online media and marketing efforts, ask yourself whether you are truly investing time against brand-building or digital merchandising?
On a somewhat related note, here’s a heads-up for a new book that advocates recognition of fundamental brand-building principals, even in a digital world. This is refreshing as so much that passes for ‘brand strategy’ these days is too often really limited to just digital merchandising …even social media, the heralded strategic meat for true consumer-brand connection in an otherwise SEM world, is sometimes misused, but I’ll save that for a later post.
The book, appropriately named: Brand Digital.
http://www.branddigital.com/#
How to bring people in?
What items or areas should be emphasized?
How to design to build so as to optimize traffic flow?
How to drive conversion?
I am being a little coy here – to make a point. The above list may sound like a clumsy and vague dialogue geared toward SEM digital media and website design. But what if it doesn’t apply to that at all? What if I am merely talking about ‘merchandising’ at your local neighborhood retailer??? ...Some interesting similarities.
None of this constitutes branding – just as none of this even scratches the surface to define and position brands such as Best Buy, Costco, Gap, Target and Wal-Mart apart from one another. Merchandising is vital – it’s the daily operating life blood of any consumer-facing selling effort – but alone – it is not branding. Those retailers go far beyond featured sales, arrangement of merchandise and in-store display strategies to build their core brand franchises with consumers.
I know I'm still a bit obscure here, as 'digital merchandising' also has a more literal interpretation in the context of strategy and design for an e-commerce website. But I am actually driving at a broader context - that of consumers navigating the overall digital universe.
Let me digress for a moment.
In this digital DM response rate world of today, a lot of media tactics and ‘digital merchandising’ are being adopted by many professionals as new (and complete) marketing strategies. CFOs like response rates. They are predictable. When compared to investing in the consumer experience or fuzzy advertising or events and a host of other brand-building activities, a proven direct marketing response rate of 2% or 5% is sexy to a CFO. Good old-fashioned coupons have always carried such sex appeal in the marketing world. And lest you not forget, we’re not taking spam here. No way, spam is so yesterday, this is CRM. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist – I’m actually as big of an ambassador for CRM as you may find – when it is correctly comprehensive, true to the consumer’s lifestyle, and embodies the underlying fundamental positioning of a brand – but you must have brand positioning first.)
The fundamental point here is that any merchandising is a part, a valued part – but not the whole, of any consumer brand-building strategy. This is true in every context of the digital world, as it is and has been in the off-line world. Stating the more obvious: an X% response or conversion rate does not constitute brand strategy.
So the next time you address your online media and marketing efforts, ask yourself whether you are truly investing time against brand-building or digital merchandising?
On a somewhat related note, here’s a heads-up for a new book that advocates recognition of fundamental brand-building principals, even in a digital world. This is refreshing as so much that passes for ‘brand strategy’ these days is too often really limited to just digital merchandising …even social media, the heralded strategic meat for true consumer-brand connection in an otherwise SEM world, is sometimes misused, but I’ll save that for a later post.
The book, appropriately named: Brand Digital.
http://www.branddigital.com/#
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Brand Involvement & Media Engagement
Ok, right up front, it's been a few months since my last post. What can I say, this Blog is one hobby among other interests.
To another but not unrelated point, the Internet - for me - has become more of a tool, and less of a source for entertainment. Remember the term, 'surfing' (the Internet)? For some, the Internet is still a means for killing hours of time doing little more than occupying otherwise bored brain waves. But for myself, and I suspect others, the once novel curiosity that led us to surf and explore, has given way to a reality that the technology of the Internet has simply increased the pace of our lives, becoming so familiar and routine, that it's entertainment value of surfing has diminished in the face of higher and more urgent seeking purposes.
With that backdrop, I serve up the following video clip which aired on CNBC this week. In the interview, Max Levchin, CEO of Slide, talks about the applications that his company has introduced in social networking environments. A giggle can be heard off camera -- maybe pause for consideration is merited?
video link here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=800646248
I think it's worthwhile to bring up brand involvement and media engagement. Category product involvement, brand involvement, media engagement and borrowed interest in advertising, etc., are understood as long-standing traditional marketing considerations. Extreme examples of borrowed interest in TV advertising have often been laughed at -- entertaining to watch, but then quickly criticized as wasted media spend and inconsistent with fundamental brand-building.
I recently heard someone refer to a well-known social networking site as My 'Empty' Space. It's been suggested that many users (e.g. college students) have moved on (with their time) to other social networks like Facebook. Before we attribute this fully to Facebook being a better mousetrap, might the novelty have also diminished for the attributes that once made the former site so interesting?
I've opened a can of worms here and I know it. Obviously, different groups use the Internet differently. Different consumers have different levels of involvement for different categories. While one media application may lend engagement to one type of product category or for certain consumer groups, it may be inconsistent with the character and involvement for other categories and it may appear a silly distraction for other consumer groups.
In the real (non-virtual) world, life experience has equipped us all with (some) scepticism of that which new, with a view that suggests 'a fad' until proven more sustaining. Yet in the virtual online world, we have yet to fully incorporate this scepticism for all that is new, instead viewing each new exposure as the next significant trend, until proven only a fad. Yet ...the online world has already well-earned some credentials for producing fads.
As marketers, we are confronted with all things new for digital marketing at a blistering rate. If we've got a true balanced (and experienced) perspective, we'll see a few of these things as 'borrowed interest,' worthy of a good laugh, but not brand-building strategies.
And btw, this is not a judgement against Slide. Only time well tell fad from trend, in terms of it's long-term role in media. It was merely a useful example from which to raise the question.
To another but not unrelated point, the Internet - for me - has become more of a tool, and less of a source for entertainment. Remember the term, 'surfing' (the Internet)? For some, the Internet is still a means for killing hours of time doing little more than occupying otherwise bored brain waves. But for myself, and I suspect others, the once novel curiosity that led us to surf and explore, has given way to a reality that the technology of the Internet has simply increased the pace of our lives, becoming so familiar and routine, that it's entertainment value of surfing has diminished in the face of higher and more urgent seeking purposes.
With that backdrop, I serve up the following video clip which aired on CNBC this week. In the interview, Max Levchin, CEO of Slide, talks about the applications that his company has introduced in social networking environments. A giggle can be heard off camera -- maybe pause for consideration is merited?
video link here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=800646248
I think it's worthwhile to bring up brand involvement and media engagement. Category product involvement, brand involvement, media engagement and borrowed interest in advertising, etc., are understood as long-standing traditional marketing considerations. Extreme examples of borrowed interest in TV advertising have often been laughed at -- entertaining to watch, but then quickly criticized as wasted media spend and inconsistent with fundamental brand-building.
I recently heard someone refer to a well-known social networking site as My 'Empty' Space. It's been suggested that many users (e.g. college students) have moved on (with their time) to other social networks like Facebook. Before we attribute this fully to Facebook being a better mousetrap, might the novelty have also diminished for the attributes that once made the former site so interesting?
I've opened a can of worms here and I know it. Obviously, different groups use the Internet differently. Different consumers have different levels of involvement for different categories. While one media application may lend engagement to one type of product category or for certain consumer groups, it may be inconsistent with the character and involvement for other categories and it may appear a silly distraction for other consumer groups.
In the real (non-virtual) world, life experience has equipped us all with (some) scepticism of that which new, with a view that suggests 'a fad' until proven more sustaining. Yet in the virtual online world, we have yet to fully incorporate this scepticism for all that is new, instead viewing each new exposure as the next significant trend, until proven only a fad. Yet ...the online world has already well-earned some credentials for producing fads.
As marketers, we are confronted with all things new for digital marketing at a blistering rate. If we've got a true balanced (and experienced) perspective, we'll see a few of these things as 'borrowed interest,' worthy of a good laugh, but not brand-building strategies.
And btw, this is not a judgement against Slide. Only time well tell fad from trend, in terms of it's long-term role in media. It was merely a useful example from which to raise the question.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
'Listening' through Online Social Media: Consumer Marketing Research 2.0
Objectives, not technology, should drive groundswell strategies." It's almost poetic.
This is one of several good videos on the topic of Groundswell from the book's authors at Forrester Research, but ok, here's the real point: 'Listening' (to your consumer) is the discussion rage today regarding social media. Much is being said to the effect that social media will now allow marketers to (finally) be in-touch with their consumers. Well, any agency that says this, should be replaced -- ASAP. No doubt, social media is a turbo-charger when it comes to dialogue with consumers, but any agency with this view gives hint to the fact that they have little or no experience with the science of consumer marketing research. Forrester rightly urges marketers to get onboard, but they don't diss the value of traditional reasearch. There aren't many meaningful consumer brands that ever existed, prior to social media, without years of focus group research, attitude & usage studies, brand and advertising tracking surveys, various forms of purchase panel data, telephone, brand clubs and direct-mail CRM, etc., etc., and the timeless feedback from store managers and sales personnel -- not remotely ignorant of the wants and needs of their consumers. Social media is huge, for sure. With a growing world consumer population in the billions, real-time speed of information, not richness of learning, will be it's most profound impact. It represents many new things now possible or made easier to do than before, but the possibility of companies now 'listening' to their consumers (for the first time) gets too much attention relative to the other business implications of social media.
How reckless is it when someone who doesn't have research expertise with sampling methodologies and representation, or potential differences between 'claimed' responses and actual behavior, or the issues associated with 'group think' when openly dominant opinions overshadow others, or the appropriate uses for qualitative insight vs. quantitative data, and the list could go on, insists upon the idea that social media is the savior to lead marketers out of the darkness of not understanding their consumers? Such folks are well-intending, but for sake of following a new technology, they shun the lessons available from decades of the consumer marketing that often pre-dates their careers. As the saying goes, "those that do not learn from the mistakes of the past, are destined to repeat them."
A better line of thought when it comes to the power of learning from consumers online is the broader subject area of Web Analytics. In DMNews, Rick Weinstock, DirectGroup North America states, "...Businesses that were well-established long before the advent of e-commerce face unique challenges when it comes to analyzing consumer behavior. ...While the multichannel approach enables marketers to improve customer lifetime sales and the overall customer experience, it continues to be important to cater to your offline-only customers. ...Online activity for multichannel customers is often heavily impacted by recent offline promotions, skewing sales toward items appearing in print." The relevance here is that we really don't live in an offline or online world (with all of us now on our way exclusively to the online world), we live in a "multichannel" world. It's a multichannel world where offline and online experience is interrelated, and thus, offline and online marketing are interrelated. An intersection of Web analytics, relevant social media, sales data and traditional marketing research, all reconciled for consistency of implications for the brand business, may be my personal 'dream team' dashboard of choice.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Marketers and Wall Street Have Similar Questions for Investments in Social Media
An interesting breeze was felt last week, one which might be an indicator of how the winds may be changing for Social Media. A story published by Dow Jones Newswires quoted a Wall Street analyst on the subject of the virtual software company, VMware. I read the story because I had been a buyer of the IPO last year, but have since sold my shares. What I found interesting though, was the last paragraph, commenting on the changing perception of Wall Street for online applications within the context of Web 2.0.
"Maybe VMware has a very strong product offering today, but the question investors are struggling with is, for how long can VMware continue to have a technology lead," said Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research…
VMware has started to make noise about how Microsoft is spreading the so-called FUD factor [fear, uncertainty and doubt] into the market. The company posted a defensive white paper on its Web site last month, in which it noted that Microsoft is "trying to restrict customers' flexibility and freedom to choose virtualization software by limiting who can run their software and how they can run it."
"Over the last three months or so, the entry into this space has been very aggressive," Chowdhry said. …It seems a stretch to imagine that VMware will ever return to the highs it saw last year. Chowdhry also points out that another driver in the stock's run-up was the fact that some investors have looked at virtualization as an industry, when in actuality it is a feature that most business software companies -- large and small -- are now battling to offer…
"Virtualization is a feature, not an industry," Chowdhry added. "Once it is a feature, you cannot command the same valuation as an industry." This is something that many of the Web 2.0 start-ups in Silicon Valley are going to have to learn as well, but that is a topic for another column. (END) Dow Jones Newswires
What I find interesting about this story is how similar the hesitation is for some brand marketing executives as compared to some financial analysts in the area of Social Media. I am a fan of online Social Media. I don’t think anybody doubts the transformational impact that it is having on empowering the voices of consumers with brand providers in the marketplace and the influence of sharing brand perceptions within such networks. Unfortunately, there is also a lot of suspected hype, as some corners ‘adjust’ theories on ideas such as the ‘long-tail’ in order to support their latest concept of how Social Media will affect future brand consumption – and sometimes these viewpoints lack any real experience with consumer insights or psychology (especially offline) or experience with the production and distribution realities that balance against the consumer appeal to be gained through customization. (I plan to address this in more detail with a future post.)
What is interesting, is that while everyone sees tremendous change, this quote acknowledges that it is still yet unclear where and how the most effective investment (or marketing spend) can work within Social Media (and that’s not to assume it would be anything but different for each and every brand, depending upon category, involvement, etc.). For example, the recent addition of targeted social ads on Facebook, seems like short-sighted, first-level thinking ...(yes, even if it leads toward Google-type search potential, it still seems like ‘putting the cheese in front of the consumer mouse’). That’s fundamentally inconsistent with the appeal of Social Media. And are social network sites really just a 'feature'? Why couldn't large online email providers like Hotmail or Yahoo promote social networking and profile capabilities within their vast existing email account bases? Regardless of the application or digital data stream, tomorrow’s consumer is going to quickly catch up with any strategies to reach them via Social Media, and not every approach is going to work transparently as planned.
Everyone agrees that Social Media represents a profound change for consumers and brands, but not everyone agrees on what represents the best approach to this opportunity, to date (especially for offline non-ecommerce brands). To many brand marketing leaders, it still looks mostly to be experimentation, at this point, and that must affect perceived ROI.
"Maybe VMware has a very strong product offering today, but the question investors are struggling with is, for how long can VMware continue to have a technology lead," said Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research…
VMware has started to make noise about how Microsoft is spreading the so-called FUD factor [fear, uncertainty and doubt] into the market. The company posted a defensive white paper on its Web site last month, in which it noted that Microsoft is "trying to restrict customers' flexibility and freedom to choose virtualization software by limiting who can run their software and how they can run it."
"Over the last three months or so, the entry into this space has been very aggressive," Chowdhry said. …It seems a stretch to imagine that VMware will ever return to the highs it saw last year. Chowdhry also points out that another driver in the stock's run-up was the fact that some investors have looked at virtualization as an industry, when in actuality it is a feature that most business software companies -- large and small -- are now battling to offer…
"Virtualization is a feature, not an industry," Chowdhry added. "Once it is a feature, you cannot command the same valuation as an industry." This is something that many of the Web 2.0 start-ups in Silicon Valley are going to have to learn as well, but that is a topic for another column. (END) Dow Jones Newswires
What I find interesting about this story is how similar the hesitation is for some brand marketing executives as compared to some financial analysts in the area of Social Media. I am a fan of online Social Media. I don’t think anybody doubts the transformational impact that it is having on empowering the voices of consumers with brand providers in the marketplace and the influence of sharing brand perceptions within such networks. Unfortunately, there is also a lot of suspected hype, as some corners ‘adjust’ theories on ideas such as the ‘long-tail’ in order to support their latest concept of how Social Media will affect future brand consumption – and sometimes these viewpoints lack any real experience with consumer insights or psychology (especially offline) or experience with the production and distribution realities that balance against the consumer appeal to be gained through customization. (I plan to address this in more detail with a future post.)
What is interesting, is that while everyone sees tremendous change, this quote acknowledges that it is still yet unclear where and how the most effective investment (or marketing spend) can work within Social Media (and that’s not to assume it would be anything but different for each and every brand, depending upon category, involvement, etc.). For example, the recent addition of targeted social ads on Facebook, seems like short-sighted, first-level thinking ...(yes, even if it leads toward Google-type search potential, it still seems like ‘putting the cheese in front of the consumer mouse’). That’s fundamentally inconsistent with the appeal of Social Media. And are social network sites really just a 'feature'? Why couldn't large online email providers like Hotmail or Yahoo promote social networking and profile capabilities within their vast existing email account bases? Regardless of the application or digital data stream, tomorrow’s consumer is going to quickly catch up with any strategies to reach them via Social Media, and not every approach is going to work transparently as planned.
Everyone agrees that Social Media represents a profound change for consumers and brands, but not everyone agrees on what represents the best approach to this opportunity, to date (especially for offline non-ecommerce brands). To many brand marketing leaders, it still looks mostly to be experimentation, at this point, and that must affect perceived ROI.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Paradox of Media
Ok, cheap entertainment here …but check out this ad for bear costumes (wink). All kidding aside, this was served up elsewhere and as a ding on advertising, but the pitfall exists everywhere in all forms of brand communication: Borrowed interest (exactly as I am doing here with this post) to gain viewer attention, balanced against the hope that a brand’s compelling benefits will be shared, received and accepted. Video clip:
This, by the way, is why I don’t believe in Super Bowl television ads. Sure, sometimes they accomplish tremendous brand awareness, but for every infamous ‘1984’ Apple Macintosh commercial, there are far too many more ‘ads for moonwalking bears.’ The temptation for advertisers is to believe, that with so many eyeballs watching, a brand can and should do something spectacular. But more often, a brand’s advertising investment can be more effective by sticking to its USP and being smarter with media dollars. And before the cheers come loudly from the digital folks, the pitfall exists there too. Obviously, not all online connections or clicks are created equal. Even when an online audience is actively ‘searching,’ paying close attention, attentive within the published content (as in counting passes), consider the collective impact of static banner ads, repulsive pop-ups and pop-unders, animated Flash ads and expandable ads, as the focused viewer seeks to expeditiously reach/review desired content (count the passes). If you think people can TiVo through inconvenient television ads, you should see how fast I click past/around unwanted online ads, as I speed-surf to absorb (or post) my desired content.
Will social networks evolve us to a new environment to ultimately yield a different consumer communication result? They certainly empower consumer voices now. But what about the future of this environment? One possibility, a paradox, is that the earliest brands now becoming associated with these online networks, if well chosen, may be embraced by most members. But when the 500th brand shows up on the site, it may find a profitable, but empty party, as members say ‘I’m outta here.’ The social network sites are still trying to figure out how grow beyond being a charity event for their audience. How will they do this and what happens then? A person on the corner giving away free stuff is the greatest salesman in the world ...unless he has to charge for it.
Maybe they should just try the public television model: “Won’t you please donate, if you’d like to continue receiving this fine programming (space)”? ;-) ...Until then, we will not escape a world with advertising clutter.
This, by the way, is why I don’t believe in Super Bowl television ads. Sure, sometimes they accomplish tremendous brand awareness, but for every infamous ‘1984’ Apple Macintosh commercial, there are far too many more ‘ads for moonwalking bears.’ The temptation for advertisers is to believe, that with so many eyeballs watching, a brand can and should do something spectacular. But more often, a brand’s advertising investment can be more effective by sticking to its USP and being smarter with media dollars. And before the cheers come loudly from the digital folks, the pitfall exists there too. Obviously, not all online connections or clicks are created equal. Even when an online audience is actively ‘searching,’ paying close attention, attentive within the published content (as in counting passes), consider the collective impact of static banner ads, repulsive pop-ups and pop-unders, animated Flash ads and expandable ads, as the focused viewer seeks to expeditiously reach/review desired content (count the passes). If you think people can TiVo through inconvenient television ads, you should see how fast I click past/around unwanted online ads, as I speed-surf to absorb (or post) my desired content.
Will social networks evolve us to a new environment to ultimately yield a different consumer communication result? They certainly empower consumer voices now. But what about the future of this environment? One possibility, a paradox, is that the earliest brands now becoming associated with these online networks, if well chosen, may be embraced by most members. But when the 500th brand shows up on the site, it may find a profitable, but empty party, as members say ‘I’m outta here.’ The social network sites are still trying to figure out how grow beyond being a charity event for their audience. How will they do this and what happens then? A person on the corner giving away free stuff is the greatest salesman in the world ...unless he has to charge for it.
Maybe they should just try the public television model: “Won’t you please donate, if you’d like to continue receiving this fine programming (space)”? ;-) ...Until then, we will not escape a world with advertising clutter.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Traditional 'Image' Marketing within Online Social Networks?
Hopefully, this will be the first of many posts and great collaborative discussions about revealing the most effective marketing strategies today, and in the years ahead. Perspectives on social networks in all forms, including social bookmarking and online brand communities; e-commerce and online affiliate marketing; 1.0/2.0/3.0; mobile networking and digital convergence; SEO, website strategies and, of course, blogging; all are fair game – as are all forms of ‘traditional’ advertising, media, PR, and offline promotions and events, etc. All thoughts are welcome.
I may, as a devil’s advocate, present the contrarian consideration to prevailing or emerging views on positioning and brand strategies. Frankly, telling the world that everything is now upside-down, and that we are now on the cusp of an unimaginable New-Tipping-Clue-Jump-Train-Point-Revolution is the way to create headlines, and headlines sell -- books, content, advertising, you name it. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of renaissance thinking out there, but not everything in the flood of ideas being proposed has been tested or proven, thus, not science. This blog, admittedly, may respond to headlines and also may not always claim to be science, but it is primarily about selling products or services, building brands …and building business.
As an appropriate first topic, this post opens the debate with the question as to whether node-to-node online social networking is only about 1:1 interactive connections and viral spread of communication (as now dominates most new thinking on marketing)? If so, why did a friend recently joked with me (after I invited him to connect in an online social network), “sure, I take all friends, I like people to think I’m hooked-up”? We’ve all seen the online mega-networkers, with 500+ of their closest friends. Sure, there are justified purposes for such a gluttony, career and other, but we also must honestly acknowledge the element of ‘schoolyard popularity.’ And consider personal social network sites that display an abundance of “I’ve-got-the-coolest-applications-on-my-site.” And then there’s the impressive expression of personal creativity on some social network sites. All of this seems to introduce some factor of portrayed image -- by the members -- in an effort to 'brand' themselves. Surely, not all brief recipients of such image can be classified as (meaningful) 1:1 personal connections. I guess its just ironic human nature how some of the same folks who reject display of mass-marketing (to anyone and everyone), practice the very same thing on a personal level. It seems the age-old trade of 1:many image marketing, however evolved, is still alive and well – even in today’s online social networks.
I may, as a devil’s advocate, present the contrarian consideration to prevailing or emerging views on positioning and brand strategies. Frankly, telling the world that everything is now upside-down, and that we are now on the cusp of an unimaginable New-Tipping-Clue-Jump-Train-Point-Revolution is the way to create headlines, and headlines sell -- books, content, advertising, you name it. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of renaissance thinking out there, but not everything in the flood of ideas being proposed has been tested or proven, thus, not science. This blog, admittedly, may respond to headlines and also may not always claim to be science, but it is primarily about selling products or services, building brands …and building business.
As an appropriate first topic, this post opens the debate with the question as to whether node-to-node online social networking is only about 1:1 interactive connections and viral spread of communication (as now dominates most new thinking on marketing)? If so, why did a friend recently joked with me (after I invited him to connect in an online social network), “sure, I take all friends, I like people to think I’m hooked-up”? We’ve all seen the online mega-networkers, with 500+ of their closest friends. Sure, there are justified purposes for such a gluttony, career and other, but we also must honestly acknowledge the element of ‘schoolyard popularity.’ And consider personal social network sites that display an abundance of “I’ve-got-the-coolest-applications-on-my-site.” And then there’s the impressive expression of personal creativity on some social network sites. All of this seems to introduce some factor of portrayed image -- by the members -- in an effort to 'brand' themselves. Surely, not all brief recipients of such image can be classified as (meaningful) 1:1 personal connections. I guess its just ironic human nature how some of the same folks who reject display of mass-marketing (to anyone and everyone), practice the very same thing on a personal level. It seems the age-old trade of 1:many image marketing, however evolved, is still alive and well – even in today’s online social networks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
