Tags: Business, Facebook, Generation Y, Groundswell, Marketing, millennials, Net gens, Online marketing, ROI, Social Media, Tweens, Web 2.0
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.
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.
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).
Tags: Facebook, Forrester, Marketing, MySpace, Online marketing, Research, ROI, Social Media, social technographics, Usability, Web 2.0
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.
Tags: Advertising, Anheuser-Busch, Bud, Bud Light, Budweiser, Communication, Doritos, Facebook, integration, Marketing, MySpace, Online marketing, Search, SEM, SEO, SoBe Lifewater, Social Media, UGC, user generated content, Web 2.0, web integration
Hey, remember the Super Bowl and all those cool ads? Yeah, me neither.
I could have bookmarked the URLs of company’s whose ads I enjoyed or told my friends about cool microsites I experienced, but I didn’t because the web was largely forgotten in this year’s ads. URLs were printed small and almost always at the end of the ad, there was only one example of user generated content, few (if any) microsites to continue the experience after the game, and generally poor use of search. What a waste of $2.7M.
Michael Estrin of iMedia Connection has a good wrap-up and several interviews of note. The question he pursues: where was the web? From Estrin’s article: “It was like we went backwards this year,” says Sean Cheyney, VP of marketing and business development at AccuQuote. “It’s like we’re moving back into silos. I was surprised that companies didn’t do more integration. The web was an afterthought for most of the ads.”
Beyond the 30-second Spot
AOL’s Annual Super Bowl Sunday Ad Poll ranked the Bud Light Dalmation-Clydesdale-Rocky ad was America’s favorite, yet it did not even have the requisite web address at the end. Here are a few quick ideas of ways you could have capitalized on this success (call me for more – my freelance rates are very reasonable):
- Contest to name the Dalmatian and Clydesdale
- Start a rivalry between Bud and Bud Light (represented by the dog and horse) similar to the Bud Bowls of the 90s
- MySpace page wraps in spots (Dalmatian) and tough-guy horse stuff (Clydesdale)
- Facebook app that allows you to send a Bud Light to a friend
- Advertising tie-in with the new Rambo movie (I imagine there’s audience cross-over with Rocky)
- Jab back at the new Miller Lite spot featuring…Dalmatians and Clydesdales
- Create a site where you integrate this ad with other Bud Light Super Bowl ads (have the dog breathing fire, the horse flying, etc)
Budweiser, what do you pay these marketing guys? Hire me or any 15 year old and you’ll get more web marketing bang-for-your-buck.
Failure to Launch
Any marketer worth their snuff – nay, conscious in the last year or two – knows that search is an integral part of any campaign. So, why this MediaWeek report:
“70 percent of Super Bowl advertisers bought some paid search ads on either Google, Yahoo, MSN – up close to 20 percent versus last year. But just 6 percent of advertisers used their 30-second spots to direct viewers to the Web, and the vast majority (93 percent) failed to buy search ads for alternative terms that were related to their ads, such as their spokesperson’s names, slogans or taglines.”
MediaWeek is reporting on a Reprise Media scorecard that goes into more detail. I find it amazing that roughly 93 percent (of the 70 percent who bought ads) failed to think of these ads from the user’s perspective. Your uncle Jimmy had knocked back a six-pack and was in the grip of a food coma when he saw Naomi Campbell dancing with a bunch of lizards. When he stumbles to the computer, he is not going to search for SoBe Lifewater. He’s going to search for “hot model and dancing lizards.” Little surprise that SoBe also ranked as a “fumble” on Reprise Media’s scorecard.
I Get By With a Little Help From My…Oh, Forget It
Only Doritos had the cojones to use user generated content. Despite it being ranked near the bottom, I thought the ad was okay. Doritos had a nice intro to the commercial, but I would have loved to see it end with the singer crunching into a Dorito. Cheesy, perhaps, but so is the product. My message to Frito-Lay/PepsiCo (who own Doritos): Don’t be rash in firing your advertising company. It is better to work with someone willing to take the big risks and use the medium that appeals to your audience. These are the folks with the potential to blow people out of the water.
Also, not a single advertiser drove viewers to their MySpace or Facebook page – there was zero social networking involved. Believe me, this isn’t because people aren’t using Facebook anymore.
Fox did drive people to www.myspace.com/superbowlads though, which is a nice way of increasing the ads value with a measurable online component. Of course, for $2.7M, I’d be wanting a little something extra too.
No one is complaining about a game of two huge franchises in the largest media markets where one of the teams has the chance to have a perfect season (and finally shut up the ’72 Dolphins). But if you’re an advertiser and next year pits the Titans versus the Buccaneers (no offense guys, but come on), you might want to start thinking about your other options. Joe over at Junta42 has some great ideas for how to spend all that cash.
Tags: Advertising, Amazon, Barnes & Noble's, browser, browsers, choice, Converse, Cookies, customization, Facebook, Friendster, internet, Marketing, MySpace, Nike, Online marketing, online retail, online shopping, personalization, Powell's, Sean John, SecondLife, Simple, targeting, TheKnot, Usability, Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, World of Warcraft
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!
Tags: APIs, Facebook, Google, openness
Apparently Google plans to respond to all of the Facebook noise (see my wrap up here: Facebook Grows Up).
Their solution is opening the gates of the interwebs even further. As TechCrunch reports, Google plans to open up to user-developed apps but will go one step further with the project, code named Maka-Maka (a little too close to Fozzie’s ” Wocka Wocka,” don’t you think?).
Allegedly, Google intends to create two-way APIs. An API is an application programming interface, which basically means it’s a way for one program to talk to another program. A two-way API would be something you could not only use via Google, but anywhere online.
If true, this will help prove that simple, intuitive, and open will beat out that which is not on any given day. I think Facebook understands this, but maybe Google just has more cash and more cache to use toward it.
Email updates via Feedburner:
Subscriptions via RSS:
What Folks Are Saying About OnlineMarketerBlog…"I do so love this piece. Great threading of lots of interesting points...Great view here so thanks."
-Chris Brogan, ChrisBrogan.com
"I like to read smart blogs. So when I started looking for bloggers to review my book, Toy Box Leadership, one my first choices was DJ Francis at onlinemarketerblog.com."
-Michael Waddell, author of Toy Box Leadership
"I've enjoyed your posts...Keep up the good work."
-Myles Bristowe, President-elect, American Marketing Association - Boston Chapter
"Thoughtful response to my Fast Company column..."
-Rob Walker, Murketing blog
"...I think we agree on solutions."
-Chip Heath, Co-author of Made To Stick
"If marketing is viral, you are the pathogen — and I mean that in the positive, cutting-edge sense of the word."
Vote!If you like this blog, please vote for it at the Blogger's Choice Awards
Thanks for visiting OnlineMarketerBlogOnline marketing is easy. Well, as easy as real-life marketing is. It's not about widgets or flashy gizmos - it's about relationships, trust, and transparency.
Everyone will have to be an online marketer at some point. So jump on in; the water is fine.