Showing posts with label BrandedJournalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BrandedJournalism. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Old Marketing Lessons for New Media

Doug Haslam recently had a difficult experience at a bike store. They called at 5:50 after fixing his broken front derailleur and told him he could pick up his bike, but he had to be there by 6pm. He asked if they could stay 5 minutes late so he could get there. They said no.

He wasn’t happy, won’t go back, and shared that with this Twitter and Facebook followers.

Given that Doug has more than 17,000 followers on Twitter and nearly 1000 friends on Facebook, he’s a guy with influence. Throw in the fact that he’s riding in the Pan Mass Challenge, so spends a lot of time on his bike (and his followers know it) it gives his experience with a bike shop that much more credibility. Since Doug has major social media influence there must be a great social media lesson here.

The lesson for the bike shop? Mind your customer service.

That’s not new. My great grandfather could have told you that from running his kosher butcher in Brooklyn. My other great grandparents could have told you the same thing from running their grocery store on Blue Hill Avenue in Roxbury.

The only real difference here is the easy with which Doug could express his displeasure and the number of people he could reach.

This got me thinking about marketing truisms and how social media hasn’t really changed anything about marketing, just the tools.

Lesson: Know whether your goal is awareness or action

To take a line from Law and Order, marketing is broken into two separate yet equally important groups. Awareness, which drives customers, and action, which makes them buy something. (dom dom)

During a recent social media breakfast a quick back and forth erupted between the speakers and the audience about how to track ROI on a social media project, such as Twitter outreach. Many noted how Dell recently credited Twitter with driving $1 million in business over a year and a half. This brought up the question of how well Dell could actually track this kind of information.

At least one audience member noted that by providing codes and other such actionable Tweets, Dell could get a relatively accurate count.

That, replied Michael Troiano, was action as opposed to awareness.

One of the joys of social media is that the broad reach isn't limited to large companies like Dell, but also open to mom and pop operations. I recently got a free 20x30 metallic print from iPrintFromHome.com, just by responding to a Tweet for their "Tuesday Tweet" and entering a code.

“Wow,” you say, “what a great use of Twitter!”

Well, yes, it is. This small family-run photo print shop reached a national audience of photo enthusiasts. And there are some great tool-based lessons here in terms of how they targeted key influencers and used them to increase their reach.

But it’s also old-school marketing. They gave away a coupon for a service in order to get information about individuals (like me) with which to sell directly later.

Not so revolutionary as it is evolutionary.

Lesson: Direct marketing gets .5 percent to 2 percent conversion rates

In the old days of direct marketing you would target your market, design a piece of mail collateral then buy a targeted list. After paying for the mailing you’d assess your response and if you came through with 2 percent of your total mail number coming back, you considered it a success.

The same holds true today.

Recently I sat down with a VP of Marketing who conducted what he considered a very successful social media campaign. It utilized a customer who had a strong Twitter, MySpace and Facebook presence, galvanized that user’s audience and drove paid users.

The conversion rate of traffic to paid users, he noted, was about 1 percent.

The main difference here is in the cost of driving that 1 percent. Instead of paying for a list and then paying printing and mailing costs, a company needs only to pay for the creative to get the project moving. Social media lets them build the list themselves while online distribution takes care of the rest.

Lesson: You can no longer make money from content.

The newsroom has never been a profit center, it has, in fact, always been a cost center. I spent many years working at TV and radio stations and I found that most general managers came out of the sales side of the house, not the news side.

The reason is simple: news is the loss leader.

This isn’t a new phenomenon, but traces its roots back to Joseph Pulitzer. While Pulitzer sunk a lot of money into his news operation, and is remembered for his contribution to news, he was primarily a businessman. His newspapers didn’t exist as public properties, they were businesses meant to make money.

Pulitzer (and his primary competitor Hearst) understood very well that if you lower the price of a newspaper to a penny, practically giving it away, and make it a desirable product by filling it with great stories, you could sell ads to the readers. News provided the channel to the people while the people attracted the businesses that would pay money to have access to the channel.

When the price of news production came down so did the exclusive control over that channel, so advertisers no longer needed newspapers (or any other big media) to reach their audience. In fact, a business like Craigslist, taking advantage of the lower cost structure, was in a great position to steal the classified advertising by simply creating a marketplace and growing it over time.

But news does, in fact, remain as a loss leader. Look at a company like Kaspersky Labs which operates Threatpost, a security blog that provides news about the IT security industry, employing many of the same journalists who used to write and edit industry trade publications like eWeek and Information Security Magazine.

Kaspersky doesn’t make money on the news, but providing information does give them a channel that attracts the audience of security-focused IT workers into which they want to sell. It also provides them a level of credibility as well as influence.

The catch for Kaspersky (and for any company) is to properly manage that news channel and not turn it into a marketing channel. For now, they seem to be doing that pretty well.

To be sure, social media caused some fundamental changes in how people interact with information and each other. Individuals, for example, now have a much louder voice to express their gratitude and displeasure. Information production no longer resides in the hands of the few and now does belong to the masses.

However, for marketers some basics still apply. No matter how new the tools, the goals and the expertise necessary to drive customers remains the same.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Why You Can't Rely on Outreach for Coverage

Journalists have always been forced to perform under intense pressures.

No matter how much time pressure or stress I have ever felt while working in PR, nothing compared to writing and producing live television. Knowing that at 5pm or 6pm the anchors start the show and your stuff better be done, it better be good and it better be accurate gave quite an adrenaline high.

Of course, working under that pressure every day gets pretty old.

I can't imagine the stresses felt by today's reporters, who not only need to "feed the beast" that is the news hole, but need to do more stories, as there are fewer people, and do it for less money. Add to that even more deadlines thanks to the deadline-every-second attitude of online news and you have a pretty volatile situation.

Lylah Alphonse compares her 23 percent wage cut at the Boston Globe (which goes into effect today) to being "tossed... a white-hot anvil." Of course, she still has a job, unlike the 8 percent at IDG who were handed walking papers.

It's obvious that this has an impact on media relations, but the details are much more difficult to understand.

Let's assume you produce refrigerator magnets. For a long time there was probably a reporter at a weekly refrigerator trade publication whose job it was to cover magnets and for years you enjoyed some good, regular coverage. Then, as things got tight, that reporter started covering magnets as well as refrigerator handles.

Well, now things have gotten worse. That same reporter is carrying more of the load, meaning that instead of covering just magnets and handles, they're covering everything having to do with the refrigerator door. Instead of producing a couple of stories a week they're now producing two or three shorter stories a DAY about all things on the door (inside and out) of all the refrigerators on the market. To go one step further, their content is probably syndicated through the parent organization to all sorts of appliance magazines, so they'll occasionally report on commercial fridge doors as well as doors for dishwashers, ovens and even washers and dryers.

What does this mean for your magnet company? It means that instead of getting coverage for a lot of your news, you'll probably get one story every 6 months written about the entire magnet industry, and it'll be a roundup. When you hold a user conference the reporters who used to come won't show up. It's not that they don't care, it's that their beats are so much broader that to send them to a single user conference for two or three days on a single company in a single market is not cost-effective.

So, how can you make sure your magnet company still reaches its audience?

  • Start your own publication -- Your website is a great place to start writing about the industry. This can be as simple as a blog written by your own people, or something more complex like a destination site written by journalists. You know all those journalists who used to cover your industry who were laid off? Most are looking for full time or freelance work. Why shouldn't they work for you?
  • Start your own multimedia project -- If you're in the tech world take advantage of your internal developer talent as well as the APIs associated with Web 2.0 to create new and interseting ways to aggregate information about your industry.
  • Bring the news to them -- No matter how much you produce on your own there is still a need to be in the major publications covering your industry. But instead of demanding that reporters travel to your site or user conference, bring the information to them through streaming video or even webinars. Hubspot TV is a great example of a how a company can put out good information that reporters want to use.
Of course, with all of these concepts you need guidance. Just as having Word on your laptop doesn't make you a novelist, having the tools to produce content doesn't mean you and your company have the skills to do it right.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Branded Journalism: It's already happening

Dave Chase has a great post on Reflections of a Newsosaur about the problems in online ad sales. He's right that news organizations need to make basic changes to their ad sales channels in order to maintain revenue in the short term. Boston.com admitted as much during the launch meeting for Boston.com/Newton in which the sales executive noted that many advertisers complained that ads on Boston.com were too high. The solution for Boston.com was to focus on a smaller geographical area in order to offer cheaper and more targeted advertising opportunities.

But as I mentioned, I still think the ad model is irrevocablly broken and the while Chase offers a short term solution, something else needs to happen over the long term.

I believe that long term news and information will be supported directly by brands. That is, thsoe brands will hire news people to work independently and they will start to offer information. While to the average consumer this information will appear to be the same as before, there will be a subtle bit of branding going on.

When I suggest this to friends the response is one of horror. The idea that a Coke could be supplying entertainment news sends a shudder through their system, leading them to use terms like "icky."

Of course, this move will happen slowly and will have to be handled carefully, but it's already going on.

Tonight while doing the dishes I turned on the MLB Channel to hear some Hot Stove chatter. The MLB Channel is, of course, owned by the Major League Baseball brand and there to promote MLB teams. Both the NFL and NHL have similar television networks, all look like copies of ESPN, often with former ESPN anchors and reporters doing the work, but focused just on one sport.

Sure, there is an advertising play here, but advertising is just one of the revenue opportunities, the rest are about attracting viewers to promote the MLB brand and that of its associated teams. This leads to other licensing opportunities and sales of MLB branded materials.

The "news" is the loss leader.