Marketing Roadmaps

Customers

GDPR 101: Focus on your Customer

by

GDPR, the EU’s Global Data Privacy Regulation, took effect at midnight Brussels time today.

In its Winners & Losers article, which I encourage you to read in full, Digiday comments  “Bluntly speaking, any business that doesn’t have a direct relationship with users is in for a difficult time,” and goes on to note subscription-focused publishers as one of the GDPR “winners.”

My 2 cents: Moving forward, every publisher, every brand needs to think like a subscription-focused business.

The game is no longer JUST about acquisition or impressions at scale. Audience targeting is about to undergo a major sea change as available inventory shrinks and costs to produce it increase.

Customer loyalty and customer permission are the long-term keys to success in a post-GDPR world. To get and keep them, we need to deliver a stellar experience for customers. This means:

  • building a well-loved, well-known brand;
  • creating excellent, well-organized content ecosystems that incorporate all the touchpoints consumers have with our brands;
  • delivering a quality personalized environment for customers/readers/viewers;
  • leveraging customers’ passion for the brand or content by engaging them in the content. Influencer marketing for sure, but also community forums, face-to-face events, private chats.

Remember: consumers like it when content and experiences are tailored to them. Even ads. But they need to be truly tailored to their preferences. No one likes to be stalked by shoe ads just because they looked at the shoes once and their income level matches the advertiser target.

A final note: GDPR is often compared to Y2K in terms of the scope of effort required to comply, and on some levels, this is true. However, Y2K did have an end point. Either your systems fell apart on January 1, 2000 or shortly thereafter, or they didn’t. GDPR on the other hand is far from over. This is just the beginning of a new media environment.

Fasten your seatbelts.

The true measure of video success: fans, not eyeballs

by

“Eyeballs” don’t fall in love with your program. People do.

This week, an interesting piece on Digiday, The ‘demonetized’: YouTube’s brand-safety crackdown has collateral damage, reported, among other things, that the tools used by YouTube to identify and demonetize unsafe content were often inconsistently or inaccurately applied, causing sharp declines in revenues for many creators, especially those with smaller channels focused on news, politics, social issues and gaming.

Programmatic media buying, which matches audience to impressions, has, if not created, certainly exacerbated the problem of unsafe, unsavory content hosting ads for brands that otherwise would NEVER advertise against that content. On the flip side, programmatic, AI-powered, media blocking may have over-corrected the problem, blacklisting sites that brands otherwise might have wanted to advertise on. Satire. Social commentary. Criticism.

At the same time, I think we are on the brink of a shift in how we experience video content, that brings us back to the spirit of the early days of television. When programming wasn’t just content and audience = ratings point or view = success.

It was a shared experience.

After the first heady rush to digital video a few years ago, publishers realized that building good content wasn’t enough. “If you build it, they will come” is still only true in movies about baseball. We had to draw the right audience to the content. “Eyeballs.” Something that proved difficult for digital-only properties, less troublesome perhaps for owners of broadcast franchises. Over the past year, concurrent with the shift to programmatic media and the rise of OTT, audience became the mantra of the moment. Perhaps even more valuable in some respects than the quality of the content.

But this won’t last. It’s not sustainable and the audiences are not necessarily loyal. If you have to buy every viewer for a fraction less than you sold it for, the pyramid will eventually collapse.

“Eyeballs” don’t fall in love with your program. People do.

What we need is to develop compelling content, reach the right audience and then develop loyal communities of viewers that want to share the experience with each other, not just watch and maybe click through to a sponsor now and then. It comes down, again, to fans.

As I commented last week, the finale of Game of Thrones demonstrates that people will watch in real time, if the content is strong enough, and the shared experience valuable enough. Not only will they watch, but also they will become advocates for the programming. With the right community marketing strategy, their advocacy can extend to the sponsors of the programming, and program advocates become brand evangelists. And, bonus, they don’t actually HAVE to watch in real time for the loyal, committed advocate audience to develop. We just need to feed it well.

That is our branded content and native advertising opportunity. Not to mention the more lucrative opportunity for video creators.

It’s not as easy as media sales. It doesn’t scale as simply as impressions. But the connections forged through shared experience, shared values, are infinitely stronger for brands as well as fans. When we target our advertising to the content and the audience together, we also avoid the problem of adjacency to unsavory content.

What’s old is new.

Again.

 

Updated 10 Sept: 

Late last week, Salon announced that it had inked a deal with Tout to combine Salon Media’s current video distribution on Facebook Live, Twitter, and Salon.com with Tout’s targeted video programming across more than 3,500 publisher partner sites. What this really means is buried in press release gobbledy-gook but my take is that Salon wanted scaled distribution and Tout needed better, more relevant, more engaging content.

It is not enough to have amazing content or a huge audience. You need both. And IMO, to succeed longterm, you need community.

Customer-centric marketing, the power of personal testimony and getting your listening ears on

by

This past summer, when I was interviewing for jobs, I drafted the notes below for a follow-up meeting with a tech company (that ultimately did not happen.) Re-reading them recently, I realized they would make a decent post about the marketing process, so I stripped out the specifics.

—

Marketing is a process that combines art and science. The more grounded your art is in your science, the more repeatable the process and the more successful you will be. The marketing plan also relies on many different inputs — including the expertise and experience of all the members of the team, past results, market research, data from the field and customer feedback. You can’t develop a marketing plan without the data and the team contributions.

Budget and timing are also factors.  When it comes to marketing tactics, there’s fast, cheap and everything in between. Typically, the most cost effective tactics take time to build before bearing fruit,  and when the situation demands fast results, it usually comes with a higher price tag.

To answer the question, What would you do?, you need to start with some more questions.

  • Who is the customer? How many of them are there in market?
  • What is the product she needs/wants? How well does the product we have match up to what she wants? This helps us understand market potential of a segment. We’re looking for the best fit with the largest possible number of customers. A perfect fit for a very small number of consumers is not sustainable, unless you’ve got a luxury product with high price tag and great margins.
  • What is the emotional driver for the purchase? How can we find a way to differentiate our product based on a dimension that matters to the customer? This is especially critical when you are trying to expand into a new market segment. You may have a very clear understanding of how your product fits the emotional needs of the your initial  customer segment, but no clear idea of how to appeal to a new group, even though you understand that there is an appeal.

For example, take end user security software like anti-virus and spam filtering. For the core customer of these products —  the 25-50 year old technology enthusiast  — the emotional purchase drivers are met by feeds, speeds and features.  He knows he needs security software for his PC  and can be swayed by product excellence, even at a higher price, because being the smartest guy with the best product satisfies an emotional need.

However, if a product is perceived as a commodity, the consumer is likely to be very price sensitive. That one product is better than the others won’t matter as much, unless it also happens to be the cheaper one.

Other segments, like retirees or moms, are less interested in the technical aspects of these products. They need to understand the benefits to them  AND that it won’t be difficult or expensive to obtain the benefits. Their emotional satisfaction in computer use does not come intrinsically from the computer and its operation. They use the computer to do something, and it is in the “something” that we find the emotional driver upon which to base messaging.

  • Where and how does she buy? Who does she trust when making a purchasing decision? We know referral is the best advertising. What referrals matter to this customer? Consumer electronics sales people ( a la Best Buy)? Friends and neighbors? How does this customer weigh testimonials from experts versus “people like me.”

This approach is a customer-centric marketing approach. You’ve got to put the process in place to find out what motivates and excites the target population, and then use this learning in marketing strategy and product development.

Once you have process in place, it is duplicable market to market. You still need creative ideas and the flash of intuition that reveals the killer idea for a specific marketing campaign, but you can’t get to those without the base.

The customer-centered approach is the first leg on the marketing “stool.” The other two are the power of personal testimony and listening posts.

The Power of Personal Testimony

Product messaging should always be grounded in customer experiences, but from their frame of reference, not the product. Consumer product goods companies understand this. In their mass market advertising anyway. No one tugs at the heartstrings better. A brand of laundry soap gets your clothes cleaner, but what it REALLY does is make you happy. Technology companies have a harder time understanding that it’s not the product that matters. It’s what the product lets us do, feel, understand etc.

And when I say customer experiences, I mean the real customers, not the hypothetical customers created in ad and PR agency conference rooms. The consumer has many ways to make her voice heard, from traditional customer service channels in your company to online reviews, social networks and blogging.

Tap into the real personal testimony.

For example, back to our spam filter example. Instead of advertisements in which the consumer thanks the computer security company  for protecting her computer, have her talk about how her life is easier/better now that she has the freedom to shop online and let her kids use the Internet without worrying about viruses, stalkers and identity theft.

Brand evangelist programs and user-generated content (especially video) are another effective way to tap into the power of personal testimony.

Of course in order to really tap into your customers as endorsers, you have to be listening to them.

Getting Your Listening Ears On: Establish online listening posts

You need an active online listening program to understand what is being said about your brand and the overall category online. Capturing online reviews, and feedback from customer service and your sales channels only scratches the surface. These channels capture the folks who really like you or really hate you.

A company needs to grasp the  “muddle in the middle” — what average folks say about a company, competitors and the product category in online forums other than the company’s own.  What they say about their lives and needs even when they do not mention products at all.

This acts as an online focus group and gives valuable  visibility into what the consumer really cares about.  This information can then be used to develop marketing programs, customer service offerings and new products.

Does active listening replace the need for things like focus groups and market research? Of course not. Traditional methods still offer tremendous value to the marketing task, particularly when it comes to measurement. Monitoring is largely dependent on the organic conversation. We’re just eavesdropping. To find out whether we’ve been successful with our programs, we need to ask specific questions, and the old research stand-bys are very relevant to that task.

If you don’t listen? It’s like a child sticking his fingers in his ears. You may not look as ridiculous but it’s just as stupid. And ultimately ineffective.

Bloggers liable for statements about products? Maybe, says FTC.

by

According to several news reports, the Federal Trade Commission is currently reviewing its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials.

The expected revisions would hold companies responsible for the statements made by bloggers who received products or samples, and also make the bloggers themselves liable for their statements about the products.

Whoa Nelly! What happened to opinion? Freedom of speech?

As Linsey Krolik writes on Silicon Valley Moms Blog, will this have a chilling effect on bloggers’ ability to give honest reviews? Will it check the growing influence of bloggers on consumer opinion?

I am not a lawyer, but I have testified at the FTC and before a House sub-committee in a past life, so I have some inkling of how this all works 🙂

Here’s my take.

First and foremost, the expected revisions are just that — expected. Nevertheless, bloggers should still protect themselves NOW. Have  a good disclaimer, especially if you review products. Linsey covers that nicely in her post. You should also be very clear about contests and giveaways. David Wescott (It’s Not a Lecture) and I (Marketing Roadmaps) did a pair of posts about that a couple years ago.

Second, we need to stay on top of the discussion of the new guidelines. Bloggers are consumers, albeit with voices, and we must make sure that our opinions are heard. We are WHO the FTC is supposed to protect, and we should remind them of that fact.

Two key issues in FTC regulation of Word-Of-Mouth

I think there will be two key issues:

  • The extent to which the blogger is acting as an agent for the company. Is there compensation, especially beyond the value of the product reviewed? Is there direction on what or when to write?
  • Whether the content is identified as opinion or stated as fact.

The sponsored post companies (like Izea), blog networks that offer sponsored posts, and the client companies are potentially the most affected by the FTC moves. Possible changes to their business model give them sufficient incentive to weigh in on the arguments. I would expect them to move vigorously to limit both the company’s and the blogger’s liability. BUT, bloggers should be aware that in a commercial transaction, the company is first and foremost going to protect itself. Not you. Act accordingly.

Break it down

The most defensible position, clearly, is when you offer an opinion about a product that you purchased. That is the opinion of a customer, and not subject to advertising guidelines. It starts to blur when we factor in blogger outreach. Companies provide bloggers with product information, including products for review, which they generally don’t expect back. In this case, I expect the FTC will look at how much direction the company gives the blogger and the total value received by the blogger.

Our job is to remind the FTC, and the companies, that firms have been providing product and product samples to customers for years. As long as the blogger is free to share his or her opinion, no restrictions, it is just that,  consumer opinion. And last I looked, opinion was free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment to the Constitution)

Sponsored posts ?

Sponsored posts, on the other hand, are going to look an awful lot like advertising to the FTC. Its  job is to protect the consumer from potential abuses. I think they will consider:

  • Is the blogger being directly compensated?
  • If not direct, is there an indirect element as often seen with blog networks where the blogger gets the product, but the network gets the fee?
  • How much direction is given to the blogger about when and what to post?
  • Is the blogger stating an opinion or presenting a fact?

I’m going to dig some more into this issue. Any readers who have additional information on the FTC plans, please leave them in the comments or email me at sgetgood@getgood.com.

This is not the end of the world for blogger relations, social media outreach or viral marketing. It is however an important issue, and we shouldn’t ignore it, thinking someone else will handle it.

They will, and you might not like the outcome.

Some Blogger Relations Mathoms

by

As part of a fresh start to Fall, I’m cleaning out my email box today. In the process, I’ve run across a few blogger relations issues that really can’t support a full post but deserve mention.

Email addresses

Don’t use gmail, yahoo or other free service email addresses to send pitches. People like to know that they are dealing with a reputable person, a reputable organization. Your email address, traceable to a firm or organization through its website, helps convey that information. Related: don’t send the email from someone else’s account, ie the email FROM: field is one name and the signatory on the email is someone else.  Nothing says “processed using an email database” better than an email sent by one person on behalf of another.

Media databases

Media databases like Cision and Vocus that include bloggers are an okay place to start building a list for blogger outreach in certain high-profile blog categories like tech, parents and marketing, but don’t just spam releases without a cover note. Vocus offers an opt-out button, and I find I am using it when it is simply a release with no note. While I am sure there is a work-around if someone affirmatively requests materials, once someone has opted out from an entity, the system isn’t supposed to let it send anything else. In other words, no second chances. Now, this might force agencies to actually begin contacting bloggers before emailing them, but I am not terribly hopeful.

Why did you send me this pitch?

If you get an email like this from me or any other blogger, don’t take offense. When I do it, it means that the item might be of interest, but  you didn’t tell me why you thought I’d be interested. Now, if I’m just a name in a database, and you have no clue why you sent me the item, this does have the effect of calling you out, so to speak. The best course is to apologize. But don’t simply offer to take me off the list — ask me what I would be interested in.

Often as recently happened with a junior staffer at an agency I respect, the rep just gets so wrapped up in the pitch that she forgets to identify the WIIFM. That’s why I always advise starting there — tell the blogger, or journalist, why you thought he’d be interested before you get into the pitch for your thing, whatever it may be.

And finally, a pet peeve.

The true meaning of Unsubscribe. It’s the action we take when we have subscribed to something, by choice, and then decide that we don’t want to receive it anymore. It is NOT a synonym for opting-out of a mailing list to which you have been added without your permission. Increasingly, however, I’ve noticed that organizations are using unsubscribe in that context. Even the opt-out mechanism on Vocus has an <Unsubscribe> button instead of <Remove> or some other verb that would be more accurate, and I have seen it used on other PR pitches sent to bloggers.

This really bugs me. Since I did not subscribe to your list in the first place, how can I possibly unsubscribe? I suspect the use of the language is motivated by the CAN-SPAM Act. The thinking probably goes something like this:

Adding these people to our mailing list without their permission is probably in violation of CAN-SPAM, but people get so much email these days, if we imply they subscribed, maybe they’ll forget that they didn’t opt-in to ours and we won’t get in trouble.

Sleazy.

—

Related posts:

Tags: