Archive for the ‘Conversation’ Category
Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re Still Pushing
There have been many conversations around where social media should “live” (marketing or PR or somewhere else) and which silo (marketing or public relations) is gaining a better foothold in managing (internally) or growing (agencies and consultants) social media business.
But in observing daily how both marketing and PR professionals are engaging in social media, I still see a lot of pushing versus engagement and understanding (or maybe even empathy). Even from those who say they “get” social media.
Keep Reading, There’s More Goodness!
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
“It’s About People, Stupid.”
I can’t think of a better way to kick off a book that’s not about today’s latest buzz word or tomorrow’s new shiny object, can you?
My friends over at Brains on Fire know better than most that it’s about people. They are the experts behind some of today’s notable and successful word of mouth movements. Their new book, aptly titled “Brains on Fire” (written by Robbin Phillips, Greg Cordell, Geno Church, and Spike Jones), graciously shares ten lessons when it comes to creating and sustaining a movement.
Movement? You’ve Lost Me.
Most marketers think in terms of campaigns. The problem with that thinking is that campaigns are short-term and are usually created with one purpose in mind: lead generation. Once the funnel is full and sales stops complaining or the sales quota has been met, it’s time to move onto the next campaign and product or service push. Come on; tell me you don’t live in that world? Say no and I’ll call you a fibber.
Keep Reading, There’s More Goodness!
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
Hope for Better Conversations
by Beth Harte and Geoff Livingston
So we know what we don’t want to hear about any more. How about increasing the volume on some conversation that push people to think or act more mindfully, bettering our professions, our societies, and our day-to-day lives? Our last post was tongue in cheek, but this one is full of hope (and a little humor, too). Here are 10 current or would-be memes that could better our online conversations.
1. Stakeholders Are Smarter Than Most. Wouldn’t your job would be 100% easier if you let your customers/donors and/or volunteers do their job? And that job is to participate in a relationship with your organization as extended members of the enterprise, either as customers, donors, volunteers, or brand investors. Let’s take it one step further shall we? How about letting stakeholders sit at the heart of your organization so that they help to design (or at least influence) the products and services they want to buy. (Was that you shuddering at the thought?!).
Keep Reading, There’s More Goodness!
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
Tags: 2010 Election, Augmented Reality, Citizen Journalism, Crowdsourcing, Culture Shifting, Customer-Centric, Failure, geoff livingston, Greg Verdino, Lauren Luke, Marketing 3.0, Open Government, Stakeholder-Centric, Thought Leadership | 
4 Comments »
Don’t Talk Out of Both Sides of your Mouth
By now it’s not news that there have been a lot of citizens sharing their thoughts and concerns about the national healthcare plan being discussed in local town halls (if you haven’t seen the videos, check some of them out on YouTube).
My friend Ken Yeung had an excellent post, What Happens When You Think your Customers Will Kowtow to You? (had to use the post name because I love the word kowtow), last week about how the AARP representative totally dismissed any comments or discussion that their members wanted to share in light of the position that AARP was taking in regards to national healthcare and sharing with them.
In short, the AARP representative told the members “we want to hear from you” and when they started speaking she said: ”Excuse me, but I really appreciate it if everyone could keep their comments quiet until there is time for the public…” By the end of the video, she was so mad that she couldn’t deliver her message that she walked out on the members. [Check out the video on Ken's post, it's quite interesting to watch.]
I don’t find any of the passion or discussions (some may call them disruptions) out of the ordinary at all. Why should I, right? We tell organizations everyday that they need to listen to their constituents and that they can’t push their messages, and that they are no longer in control of certain situations or their community.
But what did surprise me were the social media folks on Twitter talking about how these town hall discussions were out of line. Really?
I’m sure that Dell, Motrin, Dominos, Tropicana, Walmart, United and MANY more organizations felt that the discussions that their customers were having about them were totally disrupting to their business day. Right?
And yet, social media proponents analyzed their every action (or inaction) to death, shared their opinions on Twitter, their blogs and in conversation. These same companies are often used as examples of “what not to do (or to do right…after the fact). We tell companies to get with the program because this is the way it is today because ALL customers have a voice.
If you are going to be advising clients, organizations or management on social media, please be very careful to not pick and choose when you think customer conversations are acceptable or not…especially if they are based on your own political affiliation.
I understand that some people are very passionate about their politics, but I ask you to remember one thing: the government gets their money from taxpayers. That means, just like organizations, they need to be prepared for conversations, disruptions, and negativity because ALL customers have a voice. Right?
(It doesn’t matter if it’s on- or offline because eventually it could end up online anyway.)
If you embrace social media…don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. You are either for open conversation and dialog in any form that it happens in or you aren’t. Which is it?
Thoughts?
[Image: Flickr, Boxelf]
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
Brand vs. Brand Relationship: Let’s Not Confuse Them
Last night on our weekly PR 2.0 chat on Twitter (anyone can join this weekly chat Wednesdays at 8pm EST. Search on hashtag #pr20cat and join in!), we discussed branding and PR 2.0 and why PR folks (and marketers, that’s a topic on integration for another day!) need to understand branding and how it affects their interactions with constituents (or publics).
If you’ve hung out in social media circles long enough, I am sure you’ve heard “you don’t own your brand, your customers do.” Nothing can be further from the truth and why we need to be very careful with how we phrase this as marketers, consultants, agencies, etc.
FACT: You do own your brand and brand messaging
FACT: You don’t own relationships customers have with your brand
I kicked off by asking people’s definitions of branding and a lot of people responded with a brand relationship definition, which is great but I think it also leads us to, as marketers implementing social media, to want to easily hand over the keys to the castle a little too easily.
For some people it’s a chicken and egg situation. Do you love the logo or the company that produces the product/service first? Vanessa French asked me (paraphrased) “what if your mom gave you Pepsi as a kid, you’d have a relationship with Pepsi (based on emotion).” My response was “what if your mom served you Pepsi in a plastic cup and you never saw the bottle?”
People tend to identify with a brand (i.e. logo, message, etc.) first and then they relate to it. I think it explains why there are so many fake bags (Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Kate Spade, Hermes, etc.) not to mention other products on the market. It’s not that people relate to the company that owns the brand it’s that the brand (in this case a logo) gives them a perception of inclusion without the sting of the price tag. If they truly had a relationship with the brand they would never by fakes. Unfortunately, the perception of others is what spurs on the fakes market.
From “Driving Brand Value” by Tom Duncan & Sandra Moriarty (what I shared during the PR 2.0 chat):
Brand relationship is driven by:
- Trust
- Consistency
- Accessibility
- Responsiveness
- Commitment
- Affinity
- Liking
(Sounds a lot like what we talk about with social media, huh?)
Five Levels of Bonding:
- Awareness
- Identity
- Relationship
- Community
- Advocacy
I think we also tend to mixed up brand perception with branding and brand relationship. My perception of a brand comes after my relationship with the brand. For example:
I bought a Jaguar and it was a piece of junk that could never be fixed. The Jaguar dealer and Jaguar wouldn’t do anything about it. I bought based on the brand (awareness/identity), my relationship was affected by lack of trust, consistency, accessibility, etc. My perception is that Jaguars are bad cars. I am sharing my story (WOM) on my blog (social media).
So, if you are Jaguar’s PR folks and I had consistent blog about this and chatted on forums, you might want to pay attention. I would hope.
The tenets of branding are still viable, but just like everything else with social media they are more visible today and brand relationships and perceptions are out in the open.
But we DO have control over our brand and messaging! You might want to reconsider using “trust” in your brand (logo) or messaging if the case is that the brand relationships and perceptions indicate that you are not an organization to be trusted.
By the way, Driving Brand Value was written in 1997, and yet offers lessons that we still have not learned. It’s available on Amazon starting at $0.38 USD. I suggest you snap up a copy.
Also, grab Integrated Branding by LePla and Parker while you’re at it…
What do you think?
[Image: David Armano]
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
The Harte of Marketing by Beth Harte is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.theharteofmarketing.com. [If you have a question about what you can use from this blog, click on the above Creative Commons link to learn more.]
