How Brands Participate in the Conversation at OMMA East
October 12, 2006
How Brands Participate in the Conversation at OMMA East: ”
For the last two days, as most interactive marketers know, there have been two dueling interactive marketing conferences taking place in downtown NY about 5 minutes apart from one another.’ The OMMA East event, sponsored by MediaPost and the Mixx Expo 2.6 event sponsored by IAB this year decided to choose the exact same days to hold their events rather than overlapping or separating as they have done in the past.’ The result was many folks attending one event holding a bag from the other, many with two different name badges hanging around their necks and lots of conversation about what was at each event between marketers.’ Most agreed that the OMMA event was larger and more attended, however the Mixx event seemed to feature many more actual clients (rather than just agency and industry folks).’ The interesting positioning of the Mixx event was that it as the ‘official interactive event of Advertising Week.” As such, the event certainly drew many clients used to working with advertising agencies and had many panels focusing on ways of using online video and case studies.’ The OMMA event, in contrast, featured numerous sessions on the finer points of interactive marketing – including search marketing and email marketing.’ I spent more time at OMMA, mainly because I was part of the panel discussion titled ‘Rules of Engagement: How Brands Participate in the Conversation’ and moderated by Pete Blackshaw from Nielson BuzzMetrics.
In our panel, we discussed the opportunities and pitfalls of brands getting involved in the conversation, shared some views on who is doing it well and who isn’t, debated where this new effort should fit within an organization’s marketing function, and how blogs should and shouldn’t be used to help a brand participate.’ Some highlights from points that I shared from our experience in working with clients were:
- There is no ‘ideal owner’ for social media initiatives within an organization, but there is definitely a first mover advantage where the individual with the passion for doing something with personal media often becomes the internal champion and leader of the effort.
- The ‘rules’ of engagement for brands involve a three phase approach of listening, participating and leading.’ The interesting nuance of this phased approach is that it is not necessary for every brand to become a leader.’ For some, simply listening or participating may be the ideal solution to engaging in the conversation.
- A blog is not always the answer.’ There are some situations where brands may realize far more effect from participating in existing dialogue than in launching their own blog – and though it may seem like the default way to have your own voice in the conversation, sometimes it is more important to find other ways to participate rather than adding just a soapbox online for your own opinion.’
In the two keynote speakers for OMMA on the first day, Rishad Tobaccowalla of Denuo and Ross Levinsohn of Fox Interactive Media (FIM), there was a highly relevant contrast of approaches that offers an interesting example of how brands are participating in the conversation.’ Rishad started with an interesting (and somewhat controversial) view of the industry and in particular the terminology we have all become accustomed to.’ In doing so, he demonstrated the kind of new and visionary thinking that has been a hallmark of his personal reputation and something that anyone who has heard him speak before would find very familiar.’ Ross, in contrast, painted a very basic picture of the online industry — and struggled to convey FIM as an innovator and a company who ‘gets it’ by repeatedly referencing his purchase of MySpace and the popularity of the Simpsons (not to mention is $6 billion dollar pocketbook to purchase anything else he wants).’ In doing so, he pointedly sidestepped the real question … how FIM would do with keeping the popularity of MySpace on the rise while still adding advertising and trying to gain further revenue from the site.’ Yahoo has set the example with their cautious approach to integrating a large brand into conversation by only agreeing to do smart ad campaigns into Flickr and having yet to do any significant advertising on del.icio.us.’ FIM, on the other hand, wasted no time in commercializing MySpace and has plans to do more.’ How brands participate in the conversation will continue to be a question of vital importance as social media continues to draw more attention from marketers.’ Who are some other folks that are getting it right (or wrong)?
Note:‘This post is also published as a part of my ongoing contributions to the Digital Media Wire blog.
del.ico.us tags: omma mixx iab mediapost tobaccowalla denuo levinsohn foxinteractivemedia fim marketing interactivemarketing onlinemarketing advertising
icerocket tags: omma mixx iab mediapost tobaccowalla denuo levinsohn foxinteractivemedia fim marketing interactivemarketing onlinemarketing advertising
“
Orkut + Dodgeball: Why Google Will Merge Them
October 12, 2006
Orkut + Dodgeball: Why Google Will Merge Them: ”
I’ve been hearing whispers that Google will integrate their social network Orkut with the mobile social networking app they acquired
last year, Dodgeball. While it’s not rocket
science to make the connection between the two products (both are social networking), the
reasons to join the two are becoming more compelling… Here are some of them:
1) Social networking has been the biggest thing going in 2006 (MySpace, Facebook,
Bebo, etc). And it looks like mobile will be big next year. So SNS + Mobile seems the
logical sequel.
2) There is also the trend of meta-social networks, like Marc Canter’s PeopleAggregator. It was actually the latest
New Scientist magazine which rang a little bell in my mind about this. An article called
Living Online: This is your space (full article not online yet unfortunately)
concluded by saying that an individual’s identity will be managed by a meta-network,
which we will carry with us ‘in small wireless devices so that our virtual identities
become seamlessly integrated with the real world.’ That online/offline balance is one of
the main things mobile Web has going for it. So meta-SNS + Mobile is another trend I
think we’ll see emerge…
3) Peter Dawson pointed me to Mihai
Parparita’s blog, who has a great post entitled Facebook meets
Dodgeball. In it Mihai writes:
‘…I thought it would be cool to syndicate my Dodgeball check-ins into my Facebook profile, via
their blog (i.e. RSS feed) to notes import feature. It worked pretty well [...] and it’s
sort of neat that these two social networking sites are open even slightly, allowing such
co-mingling of data.’
So co-mingling of SNS data, to borrow Mihai’s neat phrase, is another trend that is
hotting up.
4) Demographics are similar between Orkut and Dodgeball. All evidence points to Dodgeball being used mostly by young people. In Brazil, home to 65-70% of the
Orkut user base, it is mostly 13-30 year olds who use Orkut. And in my recent Top Web Apps in
Brazil post, it was established that Brazil is a sophisticated Web market (at least
in the main cities).
In terms of mobile usage, Brazil is nearly at 100 Million users
according to a recent report:
‘The number of Brazilians owning mobile phones rose to 94.9 million in August, up 2%
from July, according to preliminary figures released Monday by telecommunications
regulator Anatel. Brazilian mobile phone ownership rose more than 20% when compared with
September of 2005, when the number of mobile phones was 78.9 million.’
While obviously Orkut + Dodgeball is not all about Brazil, it’s probably a good pointer to how
complementary the two services are. However I imagine Google will target the US market
first, as they always do.
Summary
While there’s no firm evidence yet that Orkut will merge with Dodgeball, I believe
it’s just a matter of time. John Battelle even kind of predicted it back in May
2005, with this comment: ‘What is Dodgeball? I dunno, but is seems like Orkut + Mobile
done right, I think.’
In any case, the high level trends point to it happening soon: SNS + Mobile; meta-SNS
+ Mobile; Co-mingling of data between SNS; similar demographics.
“
(Via Read/WriteWeb.)
Most word-of-mouth buzz is positive and travels offline – but don’t get rid of your online WOM efforts just yet!
October 12, 2006
New research from the Keller Fay Group has found that the average American mentions specific brands 56 times during approximately 100 conversations in a week’s time (via advertising age).
Other findings from the research include:
- Positive mentions outnumber negative mentions 6 to 1
- 92% of brand conversations are happening offline, of which 20% happens over phone
- Only 9% of conversations are ‘mostly negative’
- People are more likely to pass along good mentions than bad ones – so good news travels faster than bad news!
- 41% of conversations mention advertising
- 72% of opinions about brands are shared by family members and personal friends, 13% are shared by co-workers and 7% are shared by a professional or expert on the topic
- The Internet (12%), television (7%) and newspapers (5%) are the top three media channels most frequently referenced in brand-related buzz
- Email, instant message and online chat rooms/blogs comprise 6% of word of mouth
It would have been interesting to see how this data correlates with people’s buying stage. While the study shows that most brand related buzz happens offline, people may be in a more advanced buying stage when looking for brand related information using a search engine than when seeing friends and family at a reception or dinner.
When I asked Ed Keller (CEO of the Keller Fay Group and author of ‘The Influentials’) that question at a recent conference, he said that the study did not look at the correlation between online research and face-to-face brand messaging. While the research shows that 92% of brand related buzz happens offline, it could be that the effect of online word of mouth is disproportionately more impactful on buying decisions. The ‘buzzer’ may be in an advanced buying stage when he or she is talking up a brand offline – but the recipient of the brand message may not be as receptive as if he or she were actively looking for brand related information online.
On that very topic, Yahoo! and OMD released a study last week that shows that 62% of buyers use a combination of online and offline sources to gather information before they buy.
It would also have been interesting to see what kind of brands people talk up in different situations. If it is true that most people identify or talk ‘through’ their brands, then the brands they talk up with friends and family would likely be different than the brands they talk up during company gatherings. In fact, people’s need to identify or talk through their brands could explain why so much word of mouth happens offline!
The good news is that offline ‘positive news travels faster than bad news.’ We should not forget, however, that online ‘negative news stays there forever,’ and that the impact of a bad customer review can have long lasting effects on brand purchases (according to the same Yahoo!/OMD study, 25% of people have posted online product reviews). Take my recent bout with Mercedes – which after much deliberation I decided to blog (also here, here, and here). When I wrote the posts, thousands of readers came to view those posts. But now, almost two months later, search engines are still sending over 20 people a day to read those posts – that is 140 people a week! And every now and then, someone will share their horror stories with that same brand in the comment section, or they will comment on how they would never buy a Mercedes Benz again – or in one case, an independent garage owner who had been servicing Mercedes for 20 years shares his story of how he is switching brands because of poor product quality and horrible customer service. So over time, what started out as an individual product rant has become a collection of (mostly disgruntled) customer reviews – nevertheless, something of a real useful service to potential buyers.
So while 92% of word of mouth may travel offline – don’t stop your online word-of-mouth activities just yet – at least not until we understand the true impact on buying behavior!
[Tags: word of mouth wom viral marketing online marketing ed keller]
“
(Via Emergence Marketing.)
Social Networking: Time For A Silver Bullet
October 12, 2006
Social Networking: Time For A Silver Bullet: ”
Written by Ebrahim Ezzy and edited by Richard
MacManus. Note: there is also a poll at end of this post, which we invite you to participate in.
MySpace is booming in popularity; Facebook is gracing the
headlines again; Bebo is growing
incredibly; Tribe relaunched;
Cyworld, Hive7 and SecondLife are nothing short of a
phenomenon; LinkedIn is becoming ‘People Search‘; ITToolbox
relaunched with a host of social
networking features;’Friendster is now
refueling
itself to enter the market again.
Put simply, social networking is hot and there is plenty of money and
action in the SNS space to prove it.
Short History of Social Networks
Social
Networks have a history almost as long as RSS. Aspects of social networks have long been
present in dating services such as Match and Classmates. The notion of social networking first
formally appeared on the Internet in the late 1990s, with services like FireFly,
eGroups/OneList, ICQ and’Evite’- which allowed groups of people to coordinate
certain kinds of interaction.’
It was not until 2003 that
social networks became truly mainstream – with the advent of Friendster.’Shortly
thereafter,’there was a wave of social networks. Adopting small-world theory,
services like Tribe, Orkut, LinkedIn and Spoke emerged – allowing users to better
organize and expand their recreational and business networks.
Today: ‘Social Network 3.0′
Today, social networks are enormously popular.’The benefits can be seen at the
multiplier level – people mentor each other through the formation of communities; and
they network and inspire each other by example and input. Social networks protect people
from the vastness of cyberspace and offer tools to find each other, organize and share
information, or just keep in touch with friends.
Social networking sites have proliferated in the span of the past year.’While I
don’t have actual numbers, Wiikipedia tells’us that there are at least two hundred
social networks, with scores of new ones appearing each day. While some of these services
focus on teens, others target individual professionals and some aim at organizations like
businesses and graduate schools.
Venture capitalist David Hornik recently wrote about what he calls ‘Social Networks
3.0‘:
‘I believe that we are now in Social Networks 3.0. After a fair bit of excitement and
energy around pure play social networks, it became clear that the building and management
of a social network was not, in and of itself, a compelling consumer experience. In a nod
back to the earliest instantiations of social networking, entrepreneurs have come to
realize that social networks are enablers of other compelling consumer
experiences. Thus, social networks are becoming an important ingredient of all
sorts of consumer experiences…I believe that social networking will be a crucial element of virtually all
online consumer experiences going forward. And truly compelling online consumer
experiences will always make successful companies.’
(emphasis ours)
Overview of the current Social Networking Space
There are hundreds of emergent social networks, but I’ve shortlisted a few that are
worth keeping an eye on (apart from the obvious ones, like MySpace and
Facebook):
A’great resource’for finding talented, like-minded, and socially
responsible’people – upon whom you can network for work opportunities, contract
jobs, sales or partnership discussions. There has been some talk
about whether LinkedIn will expand beyond its niche. Co-Founder and Vice President
Marketing at LinkedIn Konstantin Guericke commented
recently that perhaps there is no need for that:
‘LinkedIn has been profitable for the past six months, and revenues are growing very
quickly. I’m not sure who else can say that.’
CollectiveX is social groupware suitable for a user-group, special-interest group, or
any other like-minded group of people who share similar’goals. It combines certain
team collaboration features – including group emails, shared scheduling,’file
sharing’and bulk email services etc.. This sets it apart from other social networks.
Michael Arrington’s’review
supports my view,’that CollectiveX is social networking ‘the way it should have been
done in the first place.’
PeopleAggregator [disclosure: Richard does work for them] is a meta social
network system, meaning it enables you to connect other social networking services
together. Perhaps the most important aspect of this is the Identity Hub, where you can
login to other systems via PeopleAggregator. Another feature of PeopleAggregator is that
you can import and export your data with relative ease – i.e. it’s an open system, unlike
MySpace for example. This vision is still being built out, but the idea is that
eventually you’ll be able to send messages, create relationships, join or create groups,
and post content between social networks.
Wetpaint allows you to create free hosted websites, using wiki technology. It
describes itself as a combination of ‘wikis, blogs, and social networks’ and encourages
people to create topic-focused sites. For example check out this wetpaint site devoted to dogs, called
WikiFido.
Great for those who like the idea of sharing their lives, but not necessarily every
facet of their lives. So privacy and user control are its main selling points. There is
also a lot of granularity as to how users can define relationships – e.g. husband,
roommate, business contact are some of the options. For more on these types of services,
check out Ken Yarmosh’s R/WW post Smart Social
Networks. Multiply currently claims nearly 3 million registered users.’
Allows sharing of’all types of media content – blogs, photos, audio, and video.
In the words of Wikipedia, it ‘has both a social network structure as well as a content
browsing/filtering structure’. In that sense it enables you to create a social network
dynamically and in real time.
Points to Ponder
Does more members in a network make a users life better?
Instead of simply allowing the users to create and manage friendship flow charts,
social networks need to enable them to’do something. Users should be
empowered to control and utilize their social networks in a meaningful and protected
way.
What’s the purpose of social networking?
Several mainstream social networks focus squarely’on numbers‘- page
views, number of members, hits’etc. And there’s nnothing wrong with that, it’s a
valid business approach. But social networks play on our desire to be a part of something
big,’which might never happen…
So social networking’is great, as long as it can serve’its purpose
by’connecting people in a meaningful way -’and for a meaningful
purpose.’
Over time, I believe, people will get tired of the vast and generic theme of
mainstream social networks – and move towards niche or vertical social networks that will
serve their passions and interests.
So, will niche or vertical social networks take off?
Helping match people with content is a worthwhile pursuit. We’re already seeing a new
wave of niche social networks that are building social-enabled sites around
content-oriented channels – e.g. pets,’books, music,’cars, shopping, travel.’
But social networks require a critical mass to thrive. So it will be interesting to
see how the smaller, niche social networks deal with’their much smaller user
bases.
However, due to their focus, they do seem prepared to tackle the potential social
networking bust that lies ahead.
Time for a silver bullet
The value of social networking, in general, is diminished with each new
service entering the field. There’s a need for’some standards in the social
networking space, as it is’difficult to maintain profiles at each social
network.
Many of the fun-seeking’Myspacers may actually be the very same
respectful businessmen at LinkedIn, just with an adjusted profile (and maybe an
adjusted name to go with it). So what we require is a system that connects all social
networks – that a user is a member of – and shares basic functionalities. This would
allow users to choose a system with the features and approach that best suits them.
Or better yet, instead of being confined to one giant centralized social network, we
should move to social groupwares – like CollectiveX and
PeopleAggregator – that enable users to build their own meta social
networks, based on their passions and interests. This way, numerous social networks will
proliferate – each with unique form and function.
Poll
digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Time_For_A_Silver_Bullet’;
“
(Via Read/WriteWeb.)
