ROI Of Social Media For Gen Y Audiences (And How To Convince Your Boss)

June 25, 2008 at 6:41 am | Posted in Blogging, Books, Communication, Facebook, Forrester, Generations, Li, Charlene and Josh Bernoff - Groundswell: Winning in, Marketing, MySpace, Net gens, Online marketing, ROI, Second Life, Social Media, Tweens, Twitter, User generated content, Web 2.0 | 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Generation Y – roughly those aged 13-29 – are among the strongest consumers and influencers. And while social media like Facebook, delicious, and Flickr have garnered media attention, many businesses are still wary of dipping a toe in the social media water.

I argue that we can gauge return on investment (or influence) for Gen Y by looking at their buying power and online behavior and therefore that it is imperative that (most) businesses participate in social media. Plus, I will give you the research to back up these assertions so you can prove it to your boss.

Flashback: Ohio

Growing up in pre-internet Ohio, I spent a good chunk of my allowance and lawn-mowing money on comic books at the local pharmacy. If they were sold out of my usual books, I was SOL until the following month. Scarcity of goods required that I go where they were (and quickly!) or I would miss out.

Fast-Forward: Today

Now, post-internet, these stories sound quaint. Given a bank account, any kid can get any comic book from anywhere in the world. So what does this have to do with social media and Generation Y?: proximity to resources.

Today, consumers expect businesses to come to them. Long gone are the lazy summer bike rides to the pharmacy – today, young people expect to be able to spend their money just about anywhere. And where are they? Online, in general, and on social media, specifically.

Maybe this shift isn’t a surprise to you, but let me prove it with research (easily printable for timid bosses or humbugs).

Continue Reading ROI Of Social Media For Gen Y Audiences (And How To Convince Your Boss)…

Writing Content In A Web 2.0 World

June 4, 2008 at 5:39 am | Posted in Blogging, Communication, Facebook, General, Marketing, MySpace, Online marketing, Search, Second Life, SEM, SEO, Social Media, User generated content, Web 2.0, White paper | 11 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You’ve heard all the hype about Web 2.0, but what does it all mean? How will it affect your business?

How do you communicate with potential readers and customers in this new era?

My free white paper, Writing Content in a Web 2.0 World, answers these questions and:

  • What exactly is Web 2.0?
  • How should your writing style change?
  • How has online interaction changed and what will this mean for the future of business?
  • What is the secret new currency in this market?

Download the white paper here: Writing Content in a Web 2.0 World

(The white paper is in PDF format. Download the latest version from Adobe here.)

And of course, please join the conversation! Leave comments here with your thoughts and suggestions for this or future white papers.

I considered requiring you to subscribe to my enewsletter to download the white paper. After all, if you were interested in this subject, it’s a sure bet you will be interested in my other content.

However, I’ve decided that this requirement does not fit well with my overall strategy or the community environment found in a Web 2.0 world.

Rather, I would just ask that you consider subscribing via email or RSS. Thanks!

Social Technographics: Forrester And The ROI Of Social Media

May 13, 2008 at 6:04 am | Posted in Communication, Facebook, Forrester, General, Generation X, Generations, Marketing, MySpace, Net gens, Online marketing, Research, ROI, Second Life, Social Media, Tagging, Tweens, Usability, User generated content, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week, a lot of you read my guest post about the ROI (return on investment) of social media. There is no doubt that social media is changing the ways people interact online and hence, the way companies communicate with their customers.

The thing that is still missing is quantifiable data about these interactions. We’re in a theory stage – we know what’s right because we have experienced it – but we are still waiting for proof in numbers. Forrester Research made a giant step in the right direction when they introduced social technographics.

Social technographics is an analysis of consumers’ approach to social media – not just which ones they use, but understanding how they use the medium in their daily life. You can download the full report on Forrester Research’s website (there is a fee) or read the book on the same topic published April 21, 2008: Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. (There is also a ton of free goodies at the Groundswell blog.)

I sat in on a webinar last week where Charlene and Josh expounded on their work. Josh summed up the goal of this work: “Think about what you want to accomplish, not the technology.” There is so much fascination about what technology can do that marketers often forget the question is what technology can do for you. The webinar came back again and again with the message to use this data to inform a strategy for your clients. (You can find the resulting Q&A published post-webinar here.)

How’s It Work?

Charlene and Josh categorize web users into six sections based on the level of their activity, from Creators to Inactives. I have not seen a clear but simple ranking system like this before and I certainly hope it is accepted as an industry standard. The real value, however, comes from their detailed analysis of each category’s activity.

Continue Reading Social Technographics: Forrester And The ROI Of Social Media…

What’s After Web 2.0? Thoughts About The Personal Browser

December 27, 2007 at 6:15 am | Posted in Advertising, Books, Communication, Companies, Cookies, Decision making, Facebook, General, Marketing, Microsoft, MySpace, Online marketing, Second Life, Tagging, Usability, Web 2.0 | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If Web 1.0 – typified by online newspapers and emails – was about one to many content production, and if Web 2.0 – typified by WordPress and twitter – is about connecting people through a many to one publishing model, then what comes next? I used to think it would be something of a network or matrix – many talking to many. But don’t we already have that? What’s really missing? Instead of thinking macro, we need to be thinking micro. Here are some thoughts on the personalized internet browser.

If we already have everything we need in terms of connections to other people, then the next logical iteration of online behavior is to make our communication and shopping more personal. What if there was an internet browser that knew who I was?

Let’s take online shopping: I imagine we could have a browser that automatically loaded my preferences, including clothing sizes, preferred brands, etc. And I’m talking across the internet – not just on a particular site. If I look for jeans, this browser would load size 34×32. It would place Izod in front of Sean John. Blue and black shirts would be listed before green. If I got a hankering for rugby shirts all of a sudden, it would respond in kind.

This system would be as much or more based on exclusion as it would about inclusion. I can assure you that I will never ever ever buy anything from Nike, but I do like Converse and Simple. This is an an important distinction if you want me to buy something from your store. (More about the importance of exclusion in Rob Walker’s article in Fast Company this month.)

Instead of cookies used between my computer and Amazon, and my computer and Barnes & Noble’s, and my computer and Best Buy, they would all be integrated across the board. This browser would recognize items rather than stores. For instance, if I am shopping for a book, I wouldn’t need to go to Amazon, B&N, and Powell’s individually. I could search for the book and get a list of prices from each online vendor. Likewise, book recommendations would not be based on a particular site, but rather the internet at large.

Here are a few other problems that would be solved by the type of browser I am describing:

  • Why can’t I move my half.com wish list to Amazon or another retailer, and then why can’t I morph that into a wedding registry on TheKnot?
  • Why do I have to log in to MySpace, Facebook, and Friendster separately to see if I have messages or to see what my friends are doing?
  • Why can’t I crop and size a photo and use it to create a SecondLife avatar which would then be used as a basis for a World of Warcraft character?

These are not difficult steps to take, relatively. We already have the information and we are quickly becoming adept at manipulating it. Now we just need to make it dynamic and customizable which is far less difficult. Sure, someone will need to develop a smart cookies and a nice interface and a business model (uber-targeted ads, perhaps?), but it is certainly within reach.

To sum up, the standards then for the personalized internet would be as follows:

  • Customized (and customizable) based on the person
  • Based on inclusion and exclusion of items
  • Online shopping based on item rather than store
  • More power to the user, less to a particular vendor
  • Bring together all the information from various sites into one dashboard

What do you think? Is this all crazy talk? How far away is all of this? Who will be the first to seize onto it (Apple, Google, a dark horse)? It will almost certainly be internet-based rather than software, so that already puts companies like Microsoft at a bit of a disadvantage. But it is anyone’s game. I want my personalized internet!

Marketing Adventures: Why Second Life Is Your Fault and How To Be An Online Marketing Pioneer

November 26, 2007 at 6:30 am | Posted in Ads in games, Advertising, Books, Communication, General, Guitar Hero, Jaffe, Joseph - Join The Conversation, Marketing, Online marketing, Second Life, Usability, Video Games, Web 2.0 | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Joseph Jaffe has a post from earlier this month that is worth a read: Who’s responsible for SL’s lack of reach? First, I recommend that you buy his new book Join The Conversation (and send me one – money’s tight right now!) and subscribe to his podcast Jaffe Juice on iTunes. He has great, down-to-earth marketing advice and insight that you should not miss. (A link to his blog is to the right in my blogroll.)

Some background on SL (Second Life): It’s a virtual, 3-D world where users explore, build, socialize and participate in their own economy (that’s marketing-speak from the website). When it came out, there were a rush of articles proclaiming this to be the next new world, much like The Lawnmower Man was to herald in the new virtual reality. However, it did not all work out that way. While Linden Labs (the creators of SL) claim that membership is still growing, there is widespread belief that it is actually stalled. The avatar controls are notoriously difficult. Most important to us, many users felt the paid marketing/advertising was either ubiquitous or simply over-the-top.

And these are not unfair criticisms. But Jaffe makes a case that as adventurers in the virtual world, we, the online marketers, are to blame for an unsatisfactory user experience. Sure, we cannot change the controls of SL, but we do have considerable power over the type of experience people have.

For example, was their experience integrated into the SL life or was it jarring? If you create an island where everything is a branded advertisement, do not expect visitors to return. Create some reason why the users would want to return to your branded area. If they buy something today, it’s worth pennies. If you snuggle with that customer for life, it’s worth millions.

[Coke is a good example (disclaimer: this campaign was designed by Jaffe’s company, crayon). MTV is kind of in between with good intentions, but a few trip-ups along the way. You can find any number of bad examples just by poking around (start with H.R. Block, yawn).]

On a similar note, I was talking to a neighbor the other day and was mining him for information about ads integrated into new game systems. I’ve read several articles about the failure of ads to have any effect, often the type like pixelated billboards in racing games. Of course gamers block that out. But he was gave me two other examples – one I think is decent and another I think is great. He said on Guitar Hero 3 that some car company (Honda?) built a secret level where you preform a song on the bed of one of their trucks. He felt it was over-done with all of the ads for the car company in the background. The lesson, of course, is that if you over do it, the user feels cheapened. However, he also told me about a skateboarding game where, when you customized your board and equipment, you were given a short explanation of a certain part, sponsored by the company that produces it in the real world. This “ad” was subtle, didn’t interrupt game flow, and actually enhanced the gaming experience.

Whether in SL or gaming or any experience where you communicate something to someone else, think of the interaction from their perspective. Would you find this ad jarring? Can this message be integrated to a smoother way? Could it even enhance the experience? Why is this so rarely (or so poorly) done? Is it simply because it’s more difficult, or is it just a different mind-set than churning out the 30-second one-way advertisement?

Fear (to be left out) gets us into new venues like SL or video games. And fear makes us panic when our brands are not immediately embraced. Jaffe is right – if you’re going to be an adventurer in this virtual world, it’s going to take some balls (that’s my paraphrase). Go for the gusto, but don’t forget the experience.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.