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!

How To Be An A-List Blogger – Study, Study, Study (Part 4)

May 22, 2008 at 6:04 am | Posted in Advertising, Anderson, Chris - The Long Tail, Blogging, Books, Communication, General, Gladwell, Malcolm - Blink, Godin, Seth - Meatball Sundae, Heath, Chip and Dan - Made To Stick, Jaffe, Joseph - Join The Conversation, Marketing, Ogilvy, David - On Advertising, Online marketing, Research, Social Media, Taleb, Nassim Nicholas - The Black Swan, Turow, Joseph - Niche Envy, User generated content, Web 2.0 | 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Update: Welcome Stumblers! If you like this article, please show your love via StumbleUpon. Thanks!

In this installment of the series, I will cover all of the books, magazine, websites, and podcasts that you need to become an A-List Blogger. These resources will give you the ammo to be the very best in your field. (And if you think this amount of reading, watching, researching, and learning is impossible, visit tomorrow when I will share the secrets of how to carve out at least 10 hours per week to study.)

Marketing has a funny relationship with education, research, and good, ol’ fashioned studying. Maybe it’s because the communicative aspect of marketing comes naturally to us that we forget there’s a lot of hard work that needs to happen, too. In short, you cannot be a good blogger or marketer without studying your craft.

You Can Study Communication?

From David Ogilvy: “This willful refusal to learn the rudiments of the craft is all too common. I cannot think of any other profession which gets by on such a small corpus of knowledge. (page 21)” Sometimes the flashy new tools or the expense accounts or the pursuit of new clients can all distract us from our responsibility to constantly improve our game.

And while the world around is may be shifting from books to blogs, an A-list blogger or marketer perhaps should think in terms of content or research or media, regardless of the medium. Read, watch, and listen to as much as possible, and think critically about whether the message has value.

Help Me Help You Help Me

Of course, I can only speak from my own experience. But I thought it might be helpful to outline the books, blogs, podcasts, and other forms of blogging/marketing research in which I’ve partaken during the last year.

This isn’t meant to come off as boastful. My main goal is to impress upon you the importance of continual professional education, then see you buy or subscribe to these resources and suggest new resources to me.

Continue Reading How To Be An A-List Blogger – Study, Study, Study (Part 4)…

How To Be an A-List Blogger – Curiosity (Part 3)

May 20, 2008 at 5:25 am | Posted in Blogging, Communication, General, Heath, Chip and Dan - Made To Stick, Marketing, Online marketing, Social Media, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

In this continuing series, I am covering how you can become not only the best blogger you can be, but also how to become recognized in your field and thus adequately compensated. The first two installments covered tactics – commenting and optimizing for search – but in this third post, I am making it more personal.

There are traits that are uniquely ideal for blogging. I believe the most important of these traits is curiosity.

But how can something as abstract as curiosity lead to concrete blogging results, nay success? What are the benefits of curiosity? I’ve gathered some of the best comments on this topic and I hope it proves enlightening. (If so, please feel free to comment below and subscribe to be notified of future posts on the subject.)

The Pain of Not Knowing

Curiosity is arguably caused by the pain – or perhaps frustration – of a gap in knowledge. Most of us have experienced this condition in acute or chronic form.

Long-time readers of this blog know of my appreciation for Chip and Dan Heath’s Made to Stick. They quote behavioral economist George Loewenstein on his gap theory of curiosity: “[Loewenstein] says that as we gain information we are more and more likely to focus on what we don’t know. Someone who knows the state capitals of 17 of 50 states may be proud of her knowledge. But someone who knows 47 may be more likely to think of herself as not knowing 3 capitols” (pg. 89).

Continue Reading How To Be an A-List Blogger – Curiosity (Part 3)…

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…

Ogilvy vs. Godin: Is The Big Idea In Advertising Dead?

April 29, 2008 at 5:28 am | Posted in Advertising, Books, Boomers, Communication, Generation X, Generations, Godin, Seth - Meatball Sundae, Marketing, Net gens, Ogilvy, David - On Advertising, Online marketing, Social Media, Web 2.0 | 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is the concept of the Big Idea dead in advertising? How much has the internet and Web 2.0 specifically altered the fundamentals of the industry?

In his 1983 book, On Advertising, master David Ogilvy held forth on the central tenet to sell products:

“You can do homework from now until doomsday, but you will never win fame and fortune unless you also invent big ideas. It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers and get them to buy your product…Research can’t help you much, because it cannot predict the cumulative value of an idea, and no idea is big unless it will work for thirty years” (emphasis by the author, page 16).

And yet, almost the very same day as I read this from Ogilvy, I find myself almost stunned off the treadmill as new master Seth Godin holds forth on the big idea in the third disk of his audio book, Meatball Sundae:

“There’s a difference between a big idea that comes from a product or service, and a big idea that comes from the world of advertising. The secret of big-time advertising during the 60s and 70s was the big idea…Big ideas in advertising worked great when advertising was in charge. With a limited amount of spectrum and a lot of hungry consumers, the stage was set to put on a show. And the better the show, the bigger the punchline, the more profit could be made. Today, the advertiser’s big idea doesn’t travel very well. Instead, the idea must be embedded into the experience of the product, itself. Once again, what we used to think of as advertising or marketing is pushed deeper into the organization. Yes, there are big ideas. They’re just not advertising-based” (disk 3, minute 48).

Of course, we should probably define a “big idea.” As explained, a big idea is an advertising tool to sell products. It stands the test of time. It originates with the company and is distributed far and wide. It is inextricably linked to the product and the experience of the product.

In my mind, big ideas include cut-out coupons. By-mail Sears catalogs and mail-in rebates. Tony the Tiger and the Trix Rabbit. Toys in cereal boxes that had kids begging Mom to pick that one! (Why cereal innovation is on my mind this morning, I have no idea.) Shopping malls. Radio jingles. Anything that fundamentally affected people’s decision about whether to buy a certain product or not.

So where do I stand?

Continue Reading Ogilvy vs. Godin: Is The Big Idea In Advertising Dead?…

Why Innovation Is More Important Than Expertise In Your Marketing Career

April 23, 2008 at 5:27 am | Posted in Boomers, Communication, Generation X, Generations, Heath, Chip and Dan - Made To Stick, Marketing, Net gens, Online marketing, Tweens, Web 2.0 | 6 Comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

I didn’t know what I wanted to do for a living until I was almost thirty. I knew what I didn’t want to do: the same repetitive tasks day after day, anything that involved lots of numbers, and in a place where I didn’t learn new things.

For me, the answer was marketing. But I can’t help thinking about the college student unsure of how to get paid for their odd smattering of talents.

I imagine that starting a marketing career these days is daunting. I would venture that more has changed about the business in the last 10 years than did in the 50 years proceeding it. How can a college student compete with elders with decades of experience behind them?

Continue Reading Why Innovation Is More Important Than Expertise In Your Marketing Career…

eNewsletter Winners and Losers: Threadless vs. The New Republic

February 12, 2008 at 5:58 am | Posted in Communication, Email, Marketing, Online marketing, Politics, User generated content, Web 2.0 | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the inaugural eNewsletter battle, I pitted Moosejaw vs. Cool Hunting. Today, I’m placing two more eNewsletters in a Mason jar, screwing on the cap, and shaking it until only one remains.

The winner: ThreadlessThreadless 1 small

Threadless is an online t-shirt manufacturer based in meat-space in my new home, sweet Chicago. They also possess an undeniable cool factor and loads of fun-ness. Here are some reasons why you should sign up for their newsletter: Continue Reading eNewsletter Winners and Losers: Threadless vs. The New Republic…

Super Bowl Ads Fumble

February 7, 2008 at 6:40 am | Posted in Advertising, Anheuser-Busch, Communication, Companies, Decision making, Doritos, DTC, Facebook, General, Marketing, MySpace, Online marketing, ROI, Search, SEM, SEO, Social Media, User generated content, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Chief Conversation Officer

February 4, 2008 at 6:03 am | Posted in Advertising, Books, Communication, Companies, Decision making, General, Jaffe, Joseph - Join The Conversation, Marketing, Online marketing, ROI, Social Media, Turow, Joseph - Niche Envy, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Updated: Welcome Jaffe Juice readers! Note that my other posts regarding Join The Conversation are linked at the end of the first paragraph below. Also, if you like what you see, be sure to subscribe. Thanks! 

I just finished reading Joseph Jaffe’s Join The Conversation and highly recommend it. I’m a believer that the internet age largely only changed our medium of communication. We still function basically the same and this is a book that supports the need for conversation (more important that communication or dialogue) through the online channel. This sounds easy but Jaffe has many, many examples of companies that failed miserably in this regard. (You may remember Jaffe from when I mentioned his work here, here, and here.)

Conversation in business is like a fairy or Santa Claus – you want to believe in it, but when the rubber hits the road, you “know” there’s nothing in it. This couldn’t be further from the truth (Jaffe has examples to back up this notion too). But who would fill this function in the office? Conversation isn’t on the org chart.

Jaffe suggests a Chief Conversation Officer (CCO). (Sidenote: Joseph, I tried to join the conversation at http://www.jointheconversation.us/chief as instructed on page 102, but that page did not exist – for shame!) Here’s the gist of a CCO:

“Said CCO would report to the very top and thus bypass any blinkered or biased silos. The conversation department would be populated by true generalists with expertise across marketing, advertising, internal communications, corporate communications, customer service, government, analysis, and press relations. They would be responsible for monitoring and listening to conversations, understanding and contextualizing them, responding to and catalyzing existing conversations, and, ultimately, joining them. (Jaffe 101-102)”

Later in the book, Jaffe reiterates that this is someone with a mix of attributes, somewhere between PR people (more “social media”) and advertising/marketing folks (more “storytelling”). I imagine this multi-dimensional CCO would also be “somewhere in between…longing for the days of good old-fashioned storytelling, with a sprinkle of authenticity and a drizzle of ROI to boot. (Jaffe 180)”

Likewise, I would think this conversation department headed by the CCO would be something like the “black ops” team mentioned late in the book. They would be responsible for experimentation, a vital aspect of any business, and fit in to the CCO model in my opinion.

“Experimentation is best conducted by a separate team – a nimble, independent, empowered, and intense group of individuals who report straight to the top. Depending on your anticipated level of risk and your comfort level, this team could be assembled as a ‘Delta Force’ or ‘black ops’ group…unaccountable throughout but ready and prepared to pay the ultimate price upon failure. (Jaffe 252)”

Jaffe’s sentiments relate to Joseph Turow, who recently wrote a terrible screed bashing all marketers in Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age (and yes, it is intentional that I am not hyperlinking the title – don’t buy this book!).

Turow says “The adperson who is master of this particular form of ‘conversation’ [two-way contact with customers and potential customers] can expect a growing role in tomorrow’s marketing world. (Turow 69-70)” He only begrudgingly acknowledges the usefullness of a marketer in touch with his/her audience and throws sarcastic quotation marks around “conversation,” but the sentiment is the same. He later goes on to quote James Stengel, P&G’s marketing chief:

” ‘All marketing should be permission marketing,’ he said, and ‘all marketing should be so appealing that customers want us in their lives…and homes.’ To do that, he cautioned, required creative content and ‘connection points’ in a variety of media and environments. (Turow 87-8)” While Turow spends most of his book bashing all marketing and inciting paranoia about the information marketers have (Old Navy knows I like blue shirts, the horror!), he is correct that direct connection between the customer and company will only become more important in the near future. What better person to be responsible for this connection than the Chief Conversation Officer?

Online Life Game Amalgamations – Marketing To Detectives

January 7, 2008 at 6:03 am | Posted in Advertising, Communication, General, Generation X, Marketing, Net gens, OLGAs, Online marketing, Tweens, User generated content, Video Games, Web 2.0 | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Have you ever played an ARG? You might have and never known it. And it could be the most addictive thing in marketing in the last few years.

ARG stands for “Alternate Reality Game”, as written about in the January issue of Wired magazine. Just this past weekend, I stumbled upon one while trying to figure out what the heck the movie Cloverfield was about (after clicking the link, see the “viral tie-ins” section at the bottom).

First, let’s get rid of the name. Alternate Reality? This ain’t the mid-90s. Besides, it’s not even accurate; there is nothing alternate reality about this process. I propose Online-Life-Game Amalgamations: OLGAs. Besides being more accurate (that these products operate online, in real life, and within a game in tandem), from a marketing perspective, doesn’t OLGA present a more pleasant image/sound in the mind than ARG?

OLGAs differ from other marketing efforts because rather than trying to breach the consumer’s interest through volume (push), they draw people in (pull). As the Wired article states, “That’s why [Weisman, the ‘creator’ of OLGAs] opted for a ‘subdural’ approach: Instead of shouting the message, hide it.” Thus, the consumer becomes a detective. Much like National Treasure, The Da Vinci Code, or anything by the immanent Paul Auster (especially The New York Trilogy), the author becomes part of the story, deciphering clues s/he had not realized were in plain sight, and needing to know not just where to look but to look at all. Again, from Wired:

“These narratives unfold in fragments, in all sorts of media…the audience pieces together the story from shards of information. The task is too complicated for any one person, but the Web enables a collective intelligence to emerge to assemble the piece, solve the mysteries, and in the process, tell and retell the story online. The narrative is shaped – and ultimately owned – by the audience in ways that other forms of storytelling cannot match. No longer passive consumers, the players live out the story. [my emphasis]”

You can read the article for background, examples, and a history of OLGAs, but I would like to flesh out three principles in this emerging field.

  1. Definite entry points: All of the OLGAs I have read about have definite entry points, though ideally multiple mediums would be used. The examples of the Nine Inch Nails Year Zero campaign used multiple websites, a message on an answering machine, and flash drives hidden in restrooms at concerts. The multiple mediums almost act as second opinions – they build off of each other and support the legitimacy of each other.
  2. Seamless integration into life: OLGAs derive some of their appeal from the way the games fit into a player’s life. After a threshold of suspension of disbelief, these games feel very real. You are not going to a “puzzle” webpage and “playing.” You are solving puzzles in real time with other people online.
  3. Less Is More: OLGAs succeed from a marketing standpoint not only because they do not feel like marketing, but because they do not beat their message into the head of the consumer. In this instance, whispering is better than shouting.
  4. OLGAs must be fair and have (some sort of) a conclusion: OLGAs tap into a primal human desire to solve things. From a dissertation on Paul Auster’s novels: “As another version of teleological classic art, detective text is obsessed with closure; the end comes not only as a salvation of the reader but at the same time gives reassurance that the reader is not be wandering in a wilderness of ambiguous signs. Everything that happens in a detective story must be placed under the perspective of a final truth.”

      OLGAs are not for everyone: both creating and playing. Companies should realize the immense amount of work involved – from scheming it up, to creating content, to placing clues in the real world, to monitoring players’ progress. OLGAs burn through a lot of time and money. Likewise, companies should understand that their OLGA may not reach a huge number of people. Gauge response less on the number of people involved and more on their fervor. Remember that the fanboys are the ultimate evangelists.

      Finally, here’s an article from MTV detailing some recent OLGAs. The critic confuses OLGAs with stupid publicity stunts, putting them both under the rubric of unconventional marketing. Truly unconventional, yes; but also in a class all of their own.

      « Previous PageNext Page »

      Blog at WordPress.com.
      Entries and comments feeds.