Posts Tagged ‘social media’

Failed icon. Sounds like dismal hook to hang one’s hat on doesn’t it? Especially given that most of us have such an aversion to failure in life and business—or even being associated to failure in any way. 

When you think of failure, would you consider someone who: 

• has spent a large amount of their career on educating and helping corporations and marketers to become customer-centric;
• is a Professor Emeritus at a well-known university that has a graduate program to educate students in being data-driven to ensure that customers’ needs and wants are met;
• has written over 10 books on subjects like driving and determining brand value and measuring ROI; and
• was named one of the 80 Most Influential People in sales and marketing a failure? 

No, I wouldn’t either. 

And yet, that’s exactly how Don Schultz, one of the founding fathers of integrated marketing communications referred to himself at Blur (‘The Conference that Erases Lines’), the recent PMA Annual Integrated Marketing Conference.  

Schultz stated, “…that after 20 years of integration, IMC, IM and all the other versions and visions that we’re no closer to developing a holistic, customer-focused, marketing and communication system than before.” 

20 years have gone by and companies are still no closer to putting the customer first? Seems odd that a company wouldn’t put the people who willing to part with their hard-earned cash to buy their products and services first, doesn’t it? But that is reality for the majority of businesses out there. 

Integrated Marketing Communications: It Isn’t What You May Think It Is 

When IMC was first introduced, the mission was simple: “One sight and one sound.” Because then the challenge revolved around multiple, siloed departments reaching out to customers in accordance with their revenue generation or communications plans. On the receiving end were the customers, who were left to analyze and pull together all of the assorted messages in order to make sense of what it was the advertiser, marketer, publicist, and sales person wanted them to do. As we know today, that simply doesn’t work (and it most likely didn’t work then either). 

According to Schultz all of these years later, “…it only added value to the marketers, not the consumers. It was all “outbound” where we were trying to influence and persuade the customer to buy/try our product/service…” 

And yet, most companies that practice integrated marketing communications today are still in this phase of “one sight and one sound.” That’s where, unfortunately, the notion of what IMC is has come to rest in most marketers’ minds. 

Barriers Are More Dangerous than Silos to your Business 

It’s rare to see a company organized completely around its customers and it will probably be another 15 years before we are even close to that being the norm. As in the past, there are still many silos today. But at least the silos are seemingly working together (branding and marketing communications; marketing and PR; or customer services and sales, for example) to achieve one sight and one sound. It’s not enough, but it’s a good start. 

Barriers to becoming customer-centric include: 

• Resistance to change
• Organizational structures
• Functional separations and budgets
• Capabilities and control
• Marketing planning systems 

Whether as customers or employees, we have all seen these barriers. And they are as smart as putting a concrete barrier in front of your corporate headquarters. 

The good news? The world has indeed changed. 

Schultz went on to say that “…when he and the rest of the marketing “icons” weren’t looking, the world changed. Today’s information technology has given consumers control.” 

If IMC is So Good, Why Isn’t It Being Implemented? 

This very question was asked by Loyd Pettegrew, Ph.D. in his 2000 article of the same name. Dr. Pettegrew points out eight conditions that a company must adhered to accurately reflect the practice of IMC: 

1. Must speak to all stakeholders with a single, consistent voice
2. Must assume the consumers’/customers’ point of view
3. Strategic communications disciplines must be internally integrated
4. It must have a clear and consistent message that is more effective and efficient than competing messages
5. Messages must cut through the increasingly cluttered commercial landscape
6. Must foster two-way dialogue between consumers and itself
7. Must build bonds that lead to long-term, consumer-to-brand relationships
8. Must not place excellent marketing ahead of corporate reputation 

I’d like to add a number nine: Top-down management buy-in for becoming customer-centric. 

Sounds familiar doesn’t it? I hope you are making the natural bridge to social media. As Don Schultz has stated, consumers [and customers] now have control. As such, it will be hard for companies to not start adhering to these 9 conditions if they want to be successful socially. If not, we will begin to see a lot of failed icons in the social media space. 

Failed Icon or Visionary? 

I am going with the latter. Let’s just hope that this time around, we all get it right. Because in the age of social media I don’t think consumers and customers will give us a second chance (as we’ve seen evidence of already).

[Image Source: The Gig Girl]

I have the honor of being a part of the new Social Media Council of Advisors for the Marketing Executive Networking Group (MENG) and last Thursday we had our first Q&A webinar with MENG members. Other council members include: Amber Naslund, Mack Collier, Drew McLellan, Joe Pulizzi and Paul Dunay.

Last Thursday we had a Q&A webinar with MENG members. There were a lot of great questions, but one question really struck me and I wanted to share it here because it speaks to why integrated marketing and communications is critical. 

“All of the panelists agree that social media are exciting new ways to listen and communicate, but they are basically new tools. So how do we get across to the marketing community that boring old marketing disciplines still apply and how do we get rid of this silly dichotomy between social media marketing and classic marketing.”  

My basic response was that social media tools are not new and some have been around for ten years or more. And second, there isn’t a dichotomy because social media needs to be integrated. 

I think this is a serious discussion that needs to take place because there marketers and marketing executives who have been given the wrong impression or direction when it comes to social media. 

Integrating Social Media 

First, I am not a fan of the term ‘social media marketing’ because a) it silos social media from other marketing communications tactics and other marketing disciplines and b) because a lot of folks out there are implementing social media tools without understanding the nature (or theory) of marketing as a whole. Second, as an integrated marketing practitioner, I totally disagree that ‘social media marketing’ is replacing classic marketing (or the theory that comes with it). 

What’s new and important is how these tools are being used in business; how we have a window into what our customers are really thinking, where they interact, how to engage with them, etc.; and how we now have data to serve our customers BETTER. 

But this notion of knowing our customers isn’t anything new…that’s basic marketing (and I mean ALL of marketing here, not just the promotional aspect of marketing), public relations and communications.

While CRM systems have been the tool of choice for keeping track of customers and extracting data  they never really allowed marketers to put faces to names (unless there’s some stealth way to take a photo and add it to your CRM), to listen to conversations or to actively engage in a two-way manner. The only tool that allows that is social media. 

The key to integration today is simple. Marketers need to be flexible, able to adjust, and most importantly able to provide pertinent AND timely information when, where and how customers/potential customers need/want it. Social media allows for that across all areas of marketing (product, pricing, promotion and distribution). 

Who/What Is Creating the Dichotomy?  

I think the most important issue here, however, is who/what is creating the dichotomy? Who or what is causing marketers to think that it’s an either/or situation? 

Is it that we’ve been siloed for so long and that there hasn’t been a good job with integration to begin with? We only need to look at E-Mail Marketing, Search Engine Marketing, and Direct Marketing to get a sense of the answer. 

As social media evangelists and practitioners we need to truly understand what is going on in our industry. Otherwise, we are doing a disservice to our customers and future as marketers. 

Your thoughts?

This year I re-launched my blog focusing on Integrated Marketing Communications because it’s the only thing I know as a marketer. Fortunately, I have been part of integrated departments and teams for the past 15 years. Anyone who has experience with IMC knows that the reward of a strategically executed and successful campaign is, well, marketing nirvana. 

As I have said, social media isn’t drastically changing marketing, communications or PR… it is just forcing us, as practitioners, back to our roots. For me, it’s about being true to all three, while consistently challenging myself, moving forward with new best practices, continuing to perfect my skills and sticking to my passion for IMC. 

While I know a lot of you will be surprised to hear that I will be leaving MarketingProfs (February 28 will be my last day) and the role of community manager; I don’t think you’ll be surprised to learn that I will be moving into a role with Serengeti Communications, that focuses on digital integrated marketing communications (search, social, web, and more) for Serengeti as well as for some of our clients. 

Who is Serengeti Communications? Serengeti is a digital marketing consultancy that helps clients understand their market and customers; implement search and social strategies and tools; measure ROI; and learn the skills required to create and sustain successful digital marketing programs. Basing smart, strategic marketing and communications on data in a way that adds value to the bottom line and helps to meet corporate goals is the definition of IMC. 

I have loved working with the team at MarketingProfs and our members – both are truly fantastic! The good news is I won’t really be leaving Marketing Profs, as I’ll always be a member. I’ll also be speaking at the upcoming B2B Forum (May 4-5) in Boston, so I’ll get to reunite with everyone.

I am really looking forward to this next phase of my career as I dive into a position that allows me to prove, once again, that social media is a viable part of a sound digital marketing strategy. If you don’t know Serengeti Communications, be sure to get to know us!

[Image: iStock]

Although my blog is technically on “hiatus,” I felt this post was too important to not post it here (versus my digital marketing notebook on Posterous).

I am still thinking about the direction my blog will be heading, but I know one thing for sure…it will include a lot more analysis, testing, and less opinion. 

As a marketer, testing is at the heart of what we do (or should do) and I for one have been lax when it comes to testing social media. Without testing all aspects of social media, we are, unfortunately, arguing from ignorance. 

The first test: Authenticity, transparency… and trust. 

I have long argued that agencies or consultants who take on the persona of a brand and engage in ghost blogging and tweeting were inauthentic and lacking in transparency. I have also felt that social media puts a spotlight on marketers who don’t truly understand or blend in with the market they are targeting. 

But how could I really continue arguing or ‘feeling’ without testing? I have been, essentially, arguing from ignorance or feeling…and that’s not very sound logic. 

I decided that my notions had to be tested. And that test took place tonight during the weekly PR 2.0 Chat. Tonight’s PR 2.0 chat was not delivered or moderated by me, but by Leigh Fazzina. Leigh is a good friend and PR/social media professional and I knew she would be the perfect person to test the notions of authenticity and transparency because of her background. 

As I said, this is an unscientific test, but it’s one that certainly opened my eyes and proved that perhaps I have been wrong about my steadfast (maybe even pigheaded) notions on authenticity, transparency and― ultimately―trust. 

Authenticity 

This was not authentic. Leigh was pretending to be me and I was sitting there drinking coffee watching the chat happen. I was really surprised that no one questioned the use of “my” newly acquired colloquialisms (U, UR, R, RU, etc.) or tone (capital letters and a lot of exclamations!!!). Check out Leigh’s Twitterstream and compare it to mine. You’ll see that it was definitely her tone and voice tonight…not mine. 

This only makes me begin to wonder if I have been completely wrong about authenticity. What if I was blogging/tweeting for a brand consistently using my own tone, voice, etc. Would it really matter? What if I stopped and someone else took over…would anyone really notice or care as long as they are getting whatever it is that they think they need? 

Transparency 

Obviously we didn’t let you know about the swap, so that fails on any level of transparency (or translucency for that matter). Again, if someone is ultimately being ethical in their social media efforts to help a brand does authenticity and transparency really matter? Can marketers swap in and out and still be effective? 

Trust 

First off, I apologize for using the PR 2.0 Chat as a forum to test authenticity and trust. To be honest it was more about testing MY strongly held notions then it was about testing participant’s ability to notice it wasn’t me. 

But what does this tell us about trust? If a brand is using an agency/consultant to be their voice in social media and they build up a level of trust, is it really as fragile as we think it is? I am not so sure.

I believe that no one questioned the differences tonight because you automatically trusted it was me and you would have never expected that it would not be me (unless there was a guest moderator). Again, apologies for taking advantage of that trust. It’s not something I would normally do…but I have been plagued with questions regarding social media and I had to test to prove to myself that I have, potentially, been wrong.

Personally, I don’t think that the manipulation of trust is ever the right thing to do and I wouldn’t blame anyone for being angry/annoyed with me (especially the new folks who participated for the first time and don’t really know me). Perhaps we can all learn a lesson here… 

Conclusion 

Moving forward I will always believe in authenticity and transparency and will conduct my own interactions as such. And maybe I was wrong about ghost blogging/tweeting…perhaps it is entirely possible to handle it properly and create a level of trust if done consistently. I don’t think I’ll ever be comfortable with that…but I’ll surely be less judgmental. That said, I believe trust is a fragile thing and when that trust is broken due to discrepancies in authenticity and transparency, organizations better be prepared for the potential fallout. 

Your thoughts on this very unscientific test?

[Image: iStock]

Teresa Basich and I teamed up to write this post after discussing David Armano’s post. Teresa kicked off a group conversation by asking the insightful question “Now, what could we add to David’s blueprint beginnings?” 

Teresa wrote 3/4 of this post, so if you like the way her uber-smart brain works, be sure to check out her blog,  Overcommunicated, too.

Back in June David Armano of Dachis Corporation had an interesting post on debunking social media myths featured on the Conversation Starters blog of the Harvard Business Review. David discussed how organizations continue to believe that involvement in the social media sphere is cheap, fast, and easy. David offered readers three factors to consider when diving into social media: Seeding, Feeding, and Weeding.

In essence, he states that seeding is bringing onboard multiple people (yup, PEOPLE) to create a thriving social media “ecosystem;” feeding is providing a constant flow of updated content to your internal team and customers relative to specific company goals and initiatives; and weeding is pruning out any material that could hinder internal or external growth, or even creating a separate environment for specific programs. 

After continued discussion about this article over at the Marketing Profs LinkedIn Group, Teresa  and I decided an expansion upon David’s initial post. David’s three social gardening must-haves are a great start, but there is more care for any garden-or social media program-to flourish. 

The big takeaway for us came in the form of a great quote toward the end of the piece: 

 …Not taking into account the manpower that’s involved in these as you develop your social business design strategy can lead to a lack of adoption or participation-essential elements to any social initiative.

And it’s this quote that inspired additional gardening strategies: 

Testing

As any gardener will tell you, you need to test the soil before you seed. It’s really important to test the pH to make sure that it’s at the right level to guarantee a healthy and fruitful garden. If your soil pH is off-balance you’ll have to add lime, minerals, compost or other goodies to make sure the soil is properly balanced (acidity and alkalinity) for seeding.

It’s the same thing with social media. It’s referred to as “listening” though. Before seeding it’s imperative for organizations to know what the pH level of their soil is. The testing phase is not something that organizations should rush through and it could take months to understand the condition of your soil.  Are your customers and constituents complaining, are they neutral or are they evangelists? Your test results will help you to learn what additives might be necessary to prep for seeding. 

Watering 

Although David touched on this in his Feeding tip (we could liken ‘feeding’ to fertilizing), internal education needs its own gardening care tip. Providing updated best practices and regular training and education to your internal team is as important (if not more) as making sure to feed new, meaningful information to your outside constituency. 

As hard as it is to believe, social media is an ever-changing beast (note sarcasm), and has to be dealt with as such. The parameters of a social media program and overarching business development philosophy are (or should be) in constant motion, and if you’re not relaying changes to your team on a constant basis, the messages between you, your internal people, and the outside world can become mixed. And nothing says, “We do not have our [act] together,” like fractured messaging. 

Aside from those regular updates, your internal team should become more integrated over time, through education about the ties between all departments. Client services and support reps should be able to answer basic questions for other departments. At the least, each team member should become acquainted enough with all departments to act as a bridge for individual customers to connect with appropriate business lines. 

Automating

Before we get too crazy with the gardening and short-cuts to make it easier, let’s stop and take a look at David’s mention of automating certain processes. While it’s true that a few aspects of a social media program- i.e., actual dissemination of information- lend themselves to automation, we think a reasonable rule of thumb is that if a process holds any potential to develop a relationship with your customers, do NOT automate it. Why? Well, the problem with automation is its lack of personal touch. 

If a response to an inquiry is automated, it tends to halt conversation-there’s no invitation to continue discussing the question or problem, no opportunity to build up a relationship by remedying the problem or enlightening the customer to certain products or services that could be of great use to them, no chance to turn that relationship into loyalty. Customers want to feel personally attended to, and shelling out a pre-determined response deletes “We care about YOU” from your message. That personal connection is what this is all about, so if you remove it you’re kind of missing the point of the whole game. 

Harvesting 

A social media program is a long-term investment. It is a communications philosophy that should weave its way into your everyday business methods, but it is executed through smaller initiatives with set goals. Goals that must be reviewed and amended depending on what your customers want and need.

Of course, some goals will have little to do directly with your customers, but many of them, including new product offerings, Website updates, and even corporate responsibility, should be affected by what your customers have said and continue to say about your brand, products, and outreach. Online conversations and comments are a wealth of market research waiting to be analyzed, and filtering through those responses is essential to tweaking goals and initiatives in ways that allow your business to grow and help your customers the most.

Rotating

Have you heard of crop rotation? It’s a trick gardeners and farmers use to conserve soil (i.e. nutrient depletion) by changing the crops grown on a given parcel of land from year to year. Crop rotation also has the added benefits of reduce disease and pest problems.

Employees active in social media daily to support their brands and customers know that burn out can occur over time. It’s important for organizations to realize that while on-going monitoring and potentially reaction is necessary, it’s important to make sure that employees have some down time. Consider rotating schedules and interactions. 

As David pointed out, with weeding (prune and weed out material that can inhibit its growth), organizations should also recognize that customers and constituents might also tire of interacting with same people over-and-over and they might desire the need to interact with other departments/people inside your organization. 

 

Final Thoughts

So, why bring the conversation here? Why make it so long? Because recognizing that social media programs are an investment is where it all begins, and making sure organizations understand that fact and what’s involved in creating a comprehensive program aimed for success takes many words and even more conversations. 

Have we covered our bases? What other actions do you think fit into the garden metaphor? Would you change any of ours or David’s suggestions?