Nintendo overwhelms rivals in U.S. game console ...

Powered by Mochila

Tech, Internet Firms Staying On Sidelines ...

Powered by Mochila

Chrysler's Social Web: Jeep 2.0

                       Chrysler's Social Web: Jeep 2.0                    

                  

Mediapost's Karl Greenberg writes that Chrysler has pushed itself into the social web, shifting a large chunk of its marketing dollars (1/4) into interactive under a new creative campaign called "Jeep 2.0".

This new approach to connecting with its customers will attempt to engage fans via social networks like Facebook, YouTube and Flickr.  

An analysis of the new marketing strategy show the increase in digital tools in the mix:
1) portals (using contextual/Google and behavioral/AOL targeting)
2) an IM avatar development program
3) online video
4) virtual "test drives"
5) an online fantasy football sponsorship w/print component
6) ads on free music download sites with viral marketing (pass this song on to your friends capability)
7) a TV spot (new)
8) microsites
9) a new campaign site which was redesigned to host rich-media offerings like video vignettes
10) traditional TV with product placement
11) events and bowl games
12) print ads

Mainstreaming 2.0

                       Mainstreaming 2.0                    

                  

It's "Mainstream" but there's so much more to 2.0

AdWeek's Brian Morrissey recently wrote a stellar piece about the "mainstreaming of Web 2.0". Via research from Avenue A/Razorfish, he reports on how web users are personalizing their digital experiences. The key research finding? Video sharing (YouTube) and personalized web pages (Netvibes, Pageflakes) are now all the rage. Well, we'll admit, we kind of knew this. But, the key reason the article is so relevant is that if AdWeek is covering it and claiming it, it's now official. The only detriment to industry folks of AdWeek calling something mainstream is that publicists now won't be able to get away with terms like "new" or "beta".

The study Brian focused on from Avenue A/Razorfish explains how content sharing via bookmarking, photo sharing, video uploading and tag cloud use is becoming mainstay or second nature to the average web user. Much more prominent continues to be RSS. Certainly the keywords in Brian's article are "mainstreaming" or aka the "Tipping Point" of Web 2.0 tools. Read: Web 2.0 is on the cusp of becoming a mainstay of the Internet. But, we still look around and see plenty of static web properties all over the Internet which don't allow consumers the true capability to personalize their stays online. This gives the web site industry a huge opportunity because there's so much more to 2.0. One of those industries being the retailing industry. The study found that for retailers, the Web has established itself as a research tool for users, with a dominant position occupied by Google. Over half of the respondents said they started their online shopping at a search engine rather than visiting a retail Web site or e-commerce destination like Barnes & Noble.

The Long Tail of Branding

                       The Long Tail of Branding                    

                  

Portals vs. the Long Tail Reach of Online Ad Networks

If 66% of online ad dollars will be spent on portals AOL, MSN, Yahoo or Google, where does the other 34% go? Most likely to the long tail. This may be so as of today (thank you eMarketer), but it's clear the net is now going niche and personalized (an eMarketer study found that long-tail Web sites are "indispensable" to consumers -- and they provide a new way for brands to position ads where users want to see them). So, the question is, will the long tail of branding really grow to compete with the dollars brands funnel to portals?

eMarketer's portal figures sound convincing, but the article scribed by MediaPost shows the online researcher has conflicting data (doesn't mean either data capture is wrong). The example is that at the end of 2006, eMarketer reported that U.S. Internet users spent 61% of their time online outside of the top 20 domains, which includes most major social networking sites and web portals. There are more quality Long Tail publishers (blogs, wikis, social networking pages) than ever before, and yet Media Post reports that most ad exchanges focus on selling remnant inventory only from larger publishers (portals too). This is because they [the ad exchanges] believe that advertisers [brand managers] perceive the Long Tail as a "scary place," yielding wasted impressions.

But whoa, if you look at the online ad networks, it's clear from the brand manager standpoint that it's easier to place one order and have the brand managed online simply via portals. Portals aggregate eyeballs and hey, they're "brand name portals" so many brand managers fall into the guilt by association brand trap thinking that the little long tail site at the end of the blogosphere rainbow won't deliver the impressions its brand needs to thrive in the digital ecosystem.

Where do brands want to go? Typically where eyeballs are. And it's the online ad networks which aggregate a lot of the long tail. Online ad networks are the Long Tail of Branding. Are the online ad networks capitalizing on this reach they have yet? I'd say yes and no. I'm not sure I've read it enough from the online ad networks that it is they who can effectively reach the long tail consumer. If it's the online ad networks who can position a brand contextually in the long tail, how come many online ad buyers don't know this yet? Online ad network publicity folks, let's get the PR Machine fired up. Target the brand managers who buy and deliver them educational material and facts which will educate them on the Long Tail of Branding.

Repackaging Brand Thatcherism 2.0

                       Repackaging Brand Thatcherism 2.0                    

                  

“Not flash, just Gordon”

It's hard for the average American (like me) to get British politics right. Torie? Labour? What's it all mean? Torie sounds Republican; Labour sounds Democrat. Either way, somethings going on across the pond, and it's about branding. What's the big deal? The British Labor Party Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain invited Margaret Thatcher, the onetime rival of his Labor Party, to tea at 10 Downing Street; then he went out and hired Saatchi & Saatchi, the advertising agency that helped bring Mrs. Thatcher (a Torie) to power nearly three decades ago, to handle its advertising in the next election campaign. What's the big deal is that the same ad agency that developed the winning tag line "Labour isn't working" - is now working for the Labour Party.

As the New York Times reminds us, it was just this ad which brought advertising stardom to the Saatchi brothers, Maurice and Charles, and "planted their young agency on the international advertising map." Heck, the ad didn't just plant the firm on the map, it also catapulted advertising into the realm of management consulting and law firm services.

Intriguing as it sounds, we have to remember that the Saatchi & Saatchi today is not the same firm as it was back in 1979. Since then, the firm has been purchased by Publicis and the Saatchis were disbanned in 1994 to M&C Saatchi. It's difficult though not to associate the powerful brand name of the Saatchis with all things Thatcher. To some it's difficult to understand why Publicis hasn't rebranded Saatchi & Saatchi, even after the brothers no longer have anything to do with the firm. Looking back, historical advertising aficianados will remember that political advertising in the UK is focused on print ads; TV ads are not allowed in the UK. And it was specifically the work of the Saatchis which brought political advertising (and advertising as a whole) into a higher league and respect worldwide - in part by Saatchi & Saatchi’s work for the Tories/Thatcher in the 70s. But, as to respond to The New York Times question on "How might the Conservatives, whose own party conference opened Sunday, trump Labor’s table-turning tactics?" Perhaps an idea is for the Conservatives to hire the real Saatchis.

Citi Says No to Social Networks

                       Citi Says No to Social Networks                    

                  

Why is CITI saying "no" to social media? Per MediaPost, it's "brand sensitive" and feels that certainly while teenagers will one day make their own financial decisions, exposing the CITI brand in the social networking environment may "hurt" its brand value.

Caution is always good. Media 2.0 might be pro-social networking, but we're not lunatics believing that social networks are for every brand. Nor that exposure in a social networking environment leads to an Armageddon of sales. But, the key "threat" CITI sees in launching its brand into the blogosphere and social networks is the risk of jeopardizing the controlled CITI logo and what it stands for to the masses. As a main CITI representative said, "I am very loath to put it at risk and let some individual do what they want with it." Hence, CITI's positioning is to maintain a positioning. Here is the new lesson in marketing 2.0 that many companies and organizations are facing: giving customers control over your brand. Can it or should it be done? And what happens if and when a brand manager decides to do that? Will brands become hijacked as Alex Wipperfurth suggests...leading to true brand democratization? Or will brand managers hold on to dear life to their Al Ries "Positioning" book and continue to view marketing as warfare and against the customer? I think we'd all agree that the branding process can be easier with this formal bible on hand.

Corporate America (e.g. CITI, to name just one major company) is not yet ready to take the gamble. And they are being vocal about it. Most of Corporate America is not ready to be challenged, and this makes sense because the marketing VPs that run these companies were brought up with Positioning. But, the American consumer is ready to challenge Corporate America (atleast online), oh and they can do it right now. What to do? Avoid social networks like CITI? Not join in the conversation? Stick to spin and control and don't add value yet? CITI seems comfortable for now, and that's okay. If CITI spent some $235 million in measured media--$11 million on the Internet--over the first six months of this year, according to TNS Media Intelligence, it had plenty of money to focus itself on its current marketing philosophy of "constant repetition of the message and clarity of the message". But the fact of the matter is, the consumer is changing from receiving brand messages to conversing with brand messages; so maybe CITI should reconsider, atleast in the future about how its consumers are accepting and working with brand messages. As the online voice of the consumer continues to grow and seeks to truly engage with brands online, CITI might change its mind; for as Positioning slowly dies as a method of branding, the open source branding approach to building customer relationships will lead to presences in social networks. And to more brand profitability.

The Facebook Effect

                       The Facebook Effect                    

                  

 

 

For those not 24/7 web-savvy, I keep getting the question about what the big deal about Facebook is. The simple answer is that it's not just Facebook, but rather, it's the "Facebook Effect". Facebook's profiles have changed from a place where one can just read about someone to a place where people can engage in activities. This change [reading vs. engaging] is effective in generating traffic for Facebook, as well as for the companies creating user apps, and has been termed the Facebook Effect.   

 

The Facebook Effect when studied, identifies four to five top traffic drivers to the site, which includes Slide, Inc. , Video by Facebook, FunWall, and iLike, Inc. Turns out these apps, internally integrated within Facebook, are like sticky YouTube videos - users spend gobs of time with them. Nielsen caught on to this and the "effect" is now that Facebook is leading the way of the entire transformation of web metrics (e.g. the online system is now moving away from the CTR toward time spent with web properties).....Facebook is leading the way for the user-engagement web metric.  

 

As brands move their creative strategies around online (finding the Long Tail of specific niche demographics) trying to acquire eyeballs back to their mother ship web properties, the engagement factor now becomes just as important as a CTR. Brands live for user engagement and Facebook's application platform model could be just what they're looking for to be emulated across the web, widgets included. Widgets have become the focus of companies and marketers as banner ads' effectiveness is questioned. But have no doubt, display advertising online is alive and well.

 

As The Poly Post said:

• "Marketers have limitless opportunities in using the Facebook platform. There is a large audience on the website, and information on their interests, geographical location, and age are widely available. This is information that advertising companies have taken years and spent countless dollars to gather; and Facebook has it all there without having had to spend a cent to get it."
  

So, in other terms, Facebook is now being viewed as a strategic marketing application for brands. Companies can direct their ad campaigns towards specific groups, easily. Soon, marketers will fully seize upon widgets and Facebook apps and it's possible the web will be transformed for marketers again. Widgets and Facebook apps will soon be recognized for what they are, as brand apps.  

Microbook or Facerosoft?

Microbook or Facerosoft?                    

               

The Facebook Strategy

The WSJ analyzes the battle of titans between Microsoft Corp. and Google Inc. over "the future of the Internet". Microsoft's desired move? A stake in Facebook. That would make Microbook or Facerosoft. Then there's Google, which also wants a stake in Facebook. (That would make Goobook.)

The authors define how Microsoft seeks to develop a beachhead online, a "platform" from which brands can buy ads that can reach the more engaged 2.0 websites vs. the established portals. Who will own THE "platform" which will change the face of brands reaching eyeballs online in the future is the question. For now, Google leads Microsoft by a healthy margin. Currently, the heirarchy goes Google, Yahoo, Microsoft. So, the third spot does what? It wants to buy Facebook to leapfrong ahead in the future Internet balance of power (social networking is changing how consumers tap into the Internet). The question is, should Facebook go it alone? Or take the cash infusion from Microsoft? Or accept Microsoft to serve display ads to Facebook? (Rumor has it that Facebook CPMs are $5 and Microsoft makes $50 million a year off their existing deal with Facebook).

Starbucks' Young Consumers

                  

This MSNBC article describes how Starbucks is rethinking its stance on its young customers. Fact is, kids are now part of the company's market base. Where have we heard this one before? Ah that's it, McDonald's. Yes.

McDonald's it was; Starbucks it is.
McDonald's it was; Starbucks it is. It used to be that parents would truck their kids to Mickey D's for the happy meal effect. Man would the kids go nuts on those. Meals with toys. With such competition, what's Starbucks' got in store? First off, and as aside, I was at Magnolia Bakery in the W. Village this past weekend having the best cupcakes in the world. Later that night over dinner, a visitor from my home state of Minnesota, began talking to me about how good the cupcakes at Starbucks are. I didn't know that Starbucks served cupcakes. I almost felt like saying, well, WalMart might serve cupcakes too, but you can't compare to Magnolia.

WalMart isn't Starbucks and Starbucks isn't McDonalds, but Allison Lynn reports that Starbucks is now keenly aware of its sweet tooth. Just imagine all the sweet sugary drinks and baked goods you can find at Starbucks now. She concisely writes that [for Starbucks] there are "the pitfalls of being seen as trying to lure kids to drink sweet, caffeinated beverages, has for years insisted that it does not market to children — even as stroller traffic jams build outside some stores and teenagers pack others."

So the question is, is Starbucks subliminally luring kids to their stores? Clearly not. Certainly not as directly as McDonald's has done for years. So then why are we picking on Starbucks? Well, Allison says, it's because Starbucks is revising its stance on kids, acknowledging that the under-18 set has become part of the coffee chain’s customer base. Per Allison, the Starbucks spokesman, Brandon Borrman, said: "There are still no plans to market specifically to children, and grown-ups need not worry that the Cartoon Network will be playing on the flat-panel screen of their neighborhood Starbucks anytime soon." But Borrman said Seattle-based Starbucks is considering whether to add new drinks or drink sizes that better meet the needs of kids or teens. Hmmm.

Starbucks 2.0: Kids?
Allison's article is only being informative..and that's good. But if we dig deeper and think of the implications of this, her main point is that as the Starbucks brand behemoth grows and stretches its stores across the country, there is a fear by parents that the popularity of the chain will "sell out" to targeting teens and kids, in a sense capitalizing on their customer base. The Starbucks brand has not done that yet. It says it won't. It hasn't yet. But Allison is on to something with her article. We're not dumb. We see the fear and we see the future. (It's not necessarily a 100% bad thing; remember, coffee is good for you, says the research...and chocolate bars too.) But, soon to further infiltrate Americana, we'll have the cereal, the Happy Meals and Starbucks. If this is the case, may I suggest Starbucks calm fears by simply indicating that it basically does no advertising and admit that it can't deny or stop the word-of-mouth effects of good product. Even to kids.