CK's Blog

Are marketers really this removed from their markets? Say it ain't so.

Last week I had the privilege of interviewing Mike Kaltschnee who runs "Hacking Netflix", the popular blog (300,000 page views monthly) that covers the DVD-by-mail industry and, contrary to assumptions--since "Netflix" is in the name--Mike covers all the players in the sector, including Blockbuster.

But as I found out in the interview, when Mike contacted Blockbuster to verify stories and start a relationship, they blew him off. Paul Gillin got wind of this and contacted Blockbuster to see why they treated him so carelessly and their response is here. What's so careless is that even when Paul discussed this with Blockbuster they fed him the "we encourage Mike to contact us" jargon. You mean they still can't pick up the phone or send an e-mail to Mike to start a dialog?

Folks, Mike is the HERO here, yet only a handful of us marketers recognize it. Having worked at many of these ivory towers, I know just how expensive it is to retain PR folks...and yet they get Mike, with a loyal following, for the price of a call. So he could be Blockbuster's Hero, too.

He shouldn't have to call Blockbuster once, less several times. Duh. They should be calling and courting him. Double duh. And they can't serve us the "Mike's audience is not our target market" line as his readers are avid movie renters.

A BIG thanks to Paul for following up with Blockbuster and fighting the good fight (psst: I also interviewed Paul on social media best practices, that Q&A is here).

hacking netflix Mike Kaltschnee Paul Gillin Blockbuster Netflix

Listen up B2B Marketers: lessons on talking, listening, letting go. (Marketer Q&A with Paul Gillin)

In this segment I'm interviewing veteran tech journalist Paul Gillin. While Paul has been a journalist for more than 20 years, serving as founding editor of Tech Target and editor-in-chief of Computerworld, his columns in BtoB magazine are what hooked me since he covers a range of social media topics specifically targeted to BtoB marketers.

Paul's particular interest is in conversation-based marketing and how businesses, customers and prospects tap social media to engage in an open and constructive dialog as a way to build lasting relationships (so we should be listening to him). Through many great examples, he explains how social-media tools reap new rewards--but require new techniques from marketers. Here's the Q&A:

A Wiki Worth Watching...

Cymfony has launched a program that calls upon our collective intelligence--individually we're smart, collectively we're smarter--and it's impressive from both a thought-leadership contribution angle as well as great tactic for pushing their "Influence 2.0" platform forward.

But the impressive part isn't the what (the paper), but the how. How, you ask? Through a wiki! Chapter 1 was penned by mostly Cymfony folks, but subsequent chapters are to be contributed by a broader community.

The mission is to "help professionals in market-facing functions understand the macro changes that are diminishing their ability to drive revenue and profit for their companies with a purpose of gathering the collective intelligence of those of us who have the privilege of thinking about these changes every day, compiling them in one location, and promoting them to our colleagues across the marketing/PR/customer service/market research, etc. sectors so they can guide their companies through developing the new strategies that will be required to thrive."

You might want to get involved as a contributor or editor, or just involve yourself in Chapter 1 for now. (Note: Chapter 2 was due to be released today--so far it's a no-show, but I want to cut 'em a little slack since it's an innovative thought-leadership endeavor.)

Yo Marketers: Hack This! (Blogger Q&A with HackingNetflix.com)

In the debut segment of my new interview series I'm hacking marketing practices from HackingNetflix.com, a blog covering Netflix and the DVD-by-mail industry. The site, run by Mike Kaltschnee, examines competition, tech, law, marketing, operations and customer support. It's bolstered by an active community--traffic reaches up to 300,000 page views monthly, with a daily readership of 3,000-7,000 readers.

A self-proclaimed movie fanatic, Mike found the operational aspects of Netflix to be more interesting than the movies they sent him each month. While the name can sound like a sting operation, HackingNetflix will not teach you how to lie, cheat or steal from Netflix. "Cracking is breaking into computers and hacking has gotten a bad rap", notes the blogger who is devoted to learning as much about the company and sharing it with others.

This hacker teaches marketers how to treat bloggers so they champion our message, how blogging lends companies a "human" voice and what corporate America is missing out on by not participating in the blogosphere. Here's the Q&A:

I want my...ads?

As reported in MediaWeek last week, "Comcast has hired TV research firm Frank Magid & Associates to oversee a major new study of the effectiveness of on-demand advertising, that will be based on a survey of 4,000 Comcast digital TV subscribers." Since I pay for the on-demand movies I watch...would I be required to pay for the on-demand ads, too? Or would they lower my monthly cable bill for sitting through commercials on feminine products and burger joints?

Now I do download movie trailers, which indeed are ads. And I might download some advertiser-generated short films (e.g. BMW's films) but it would need to be a mighty compelling ad or have a mighty compelling value prop (e.g. free cable).

Maybe I'm missing something and along with marketers switching from top-down marketing to bottom-up some have also been dropped on their heads--folks, haven't consumers proven, time and again, that they'll do anything to avoid ads? This weekend I was told "marketers are evil" and instead of defending my clan, I decided to follow my own advice and listen. After reading this article, I would tell the person he forgot to add 'mindless' to his list of adjectives.

Shout out: Thanks to Shelly Palmer's newsletter for notifying me of this.

Chickens, Snakes & Beer Bellies...oh my! (the wonder of what goes viral)

In today's Mad Ave Journal contributing writer Jennifer Nastu features some mighty entertaining videos in her new "Clip Pics" column. She features a grassroots video of the 'McNuggets Guys', a mock audition tape for the summer movie release of Snakes On A Plane--or "SoaP", as the blogosphere has donned it--in which a comedian does impressive personas of Jack Nicholson, Christopher Walken and Joe Pesci...and a video for a strap-on beer gut that's like a white-trash cantine, aptly called the "Beer Belly".

Besides the clips, here's the copy that hooked this marketer: "Companies tend to call videos they create on their own behalf "viral" simply because they include a "forward to a friend" mechanism. In truth, there's no telling what will make a video "go viral" until it actually happens, until a cultural phenomenon takes place and a frenzy of participation begins, where consumers talk about, create and share videos. The best viral videos tend to be downright hilarious, but occasionally they go viral for other reasons - for touching a nerve, for example, or for shining a spotlight on a particular hot button topic or issue. Mostly, though, they're just plain fun."

Well said, Jennifer--thanks for giving me some entertainment along with my daily marketing lesson. The shorts-and the column-are worth checking out. Enjoy!

Ending ‘on point’ is so anti-social.

All my classes, books and bosses have always instructed to end a scribe or a speech on a key point. “Close strong.”, “End on a high note.”, “Don't leave them hanging!", "Wrap it up for your audience with a nice tight bow.” While many traditional marketing principles still very much apply in this web-ified world, this one has seen its best days.

When we’re talking social media, the operative word is social. And when we’re socializing, be it online or off, a discussion is happening, an exchange of questions and answers…which beg more questions, and further the discussion.  So if we’re not asking questions--and not furthering the discussion--then we’re not leveraging the social part of this great new medium.  Why keep the 2-way web on a 1-way street?

Having just seen the extraordinary film, An Inconvenient Truth, in which Al Gore outlays the very real environmental crisis due to Global Warming, there were many key points that struck a chord. But what really resonated with me is one of the questions Al asked, namely: Is it possible that we should prepare against other disasters, besides terrorism?

Up until that point I was so busy soaking up information on ice caps, greenhouse gasses and fatality rates, my mind had not focused on an action point. But when served a question my mind when into action and I started engaging in a discussion with Al (a discussion in which I vehemently agree with him, btw).

Questions, even rather benign ones like “Do you agree?” or “What are your thoughts?” transform lifeless monologues into lively dialogues. Even if users don’t reply by posting a comment, they’ve replied in their minds—or are thinking it over. That’s just what questions do to our socially wired brains.

So here's the key point: involve your readers by involving the part of their brain that’s activated by questions. Don't "hit it home", hit the ball into their court. Get social by ending on a key question (instead of a key point). And here's the key question: 

Are you leveraging the social aspect of social media?  

blog marketing Christina Kerley CK Social Media

Savvy Positioning Play: Personality vs. Program Type

Many know I work in tech, but media (particularly broadcast media) is also a practice area and guilty pleasure of mine. Broadcast media all boils down to programming--a moving target if ever there was one since consumers are, well, finnicky. Our tastes change and change on a dime. In '98, when I worked at ABC, positioning was, and to some degree still is, driven by demos. ABC targeted the family-friendly demos, NBC targeted the single-friendly demos and CBS owned the mature-audience demos.

Lately the cable networks' strategy has skewed towards program type, or genre. It's worked well to differentiate several of them, particularly since these networks rely far more heavily than broadcast biggies on syndicated/also-ran programming. TNT's platform is drama (tagline: "We Know Drama"), TBS has packaged itself around comedy (tagline: "Very Funny") and, for a while, FX seemed to be banking on "edgy". But if last season's run of Nip/Tuck is any indication, the network has lost its edge and much of its writing talent--the show didn't jump the shark, it dove headfirst into a tank of them.

What's impressing me these days is USA's strategy of positioning around personalities (tagline: "Characters Welcome"). What's so impressive about it?

#1: Enables a rich range: By virtue of centering on personalities, the network has unleashed a varied, layered lineup of comedy (Monk, Psych), drama (The Dead Zone, House) and even sci-fi (The 4400). But the range doesn't come across as all over the map because the personality positioning provides a common theme.

#2: Invites audience involvement: USA's "Characters Welcome" campaign is impressive because it not only promotes the network's stars, it also invites viewer participation. Through its "show us your character" campaign, the network features contests and segments promoting everyday characters that write-in with their stories, including unlikely break dancers, prom-queen ventriloquists, etc.

Smart positioning play; I'm betting it begets more Emmy noms and deep-pocketed advertisers for USA.

TBS Cable TV TV marketing Positioning Media Marketing

Marketers Weigh In on Net Neutrality: freedom for all or marketing free-for-all?

In this week's Mad Ave Journal column, I'm polling marketers on the hotly debated net neutrality regulations currently circulating Congress and the blogosphere. Proponents of regulating a "neutral net" say it's an issue of securing freedoms, opponents argue it's an issue of securing investments to keep "tomorrow's net" running at optimal levels. Since this decision could equate into competitive advantages--the ace in a marketer's deck--I'm interested in how the marketers weigh in. Below is this week's poll excerpted (but if you want to cast your vote and see real-time results, you need to go here).

Poster boy for net neutrality, Craig Newmark, the founder who put the 'Craig' in Craigslist.org, advocates an Internet that's neutral, fair and free. A level playing field in cyberspace, just like now. Craig fears the deregulation legislation, passed by the House last Thursday, paves the way for telecoms to play favorites among Web players. The next stop is Senate and, if this bill becomes law, Craig portends telecoms, in addition to controlling the pipes you use to view Web sites, will also control which sites you view--and how you experience them. Newmark foresees some sites loading faster, some slower, all contingent upon who's paying whom. While the telecoms say they can be trusted to provide fair access, some execs have already admitted that paying premiums for site access--akin to paying Fedex for overnight delivery, or purchasing a first-class seat instead of coach--is a model that works in consumers' best interests.

Read Newmark's full commentary here. Sign the petition here. Or, for some fun with your politics, check out the singing neutral-net ninja here.

On the other side of the debate sits Mike McCurry, partner at Public Strategies Washington Inc. and former press secretary to Bill Clinton, who opines the very companies lobbying for a "free Internet", including Google and eBay, are worried less about freedoms, more about finances. McCurry posits net neutrality is a thinly disguised ploy for dotcoms to pass the buck for much-needed upgrades--due to increasing demand for bandwidth-heavy apps like online gaming, video and phone conversations--onto consumers.

Read McCurry's full commentary here. Sign the petition here. (sorry folks, no singing ninja for this side).

While freedom may be free, securing a level playing field is not. Would you spend more to ensure the same advantages apply to all? Or do you prefer passing the buck onto corporations, wherein telecoms could set the net's new cost of entry? Do you support a free net (cost to consumers) or a marketing free-for-all (cost to corporations)? You can vote here.

Quality trumps Quantity (as in life, so too in the blogoshpere)

A piece well worth reading is by MarketingProfs' contributing blogger Eric Kintz. While I'm forever harping on clients and colleagues to tap new media to become better listeners (and in turn, much better marketers), Kintz's quality vs. quantity rationale will indeed become another mantra of mine.

According to Kintz, "The pressure around posting frequency will ultimately become a significant barrier to the maturity of blogging". He then gives the top 10 reasons "Why Blog Post Frequency Does Not Matter Anymore" including such pearls as:

#1: Traffic is generated by participating in the community; not daily posting: Eric posits getting out of our own heads, and blogs. I actually did it differently than most folks, I crept around the blogosphere for many months before I launched my blog--and it was the best move I could have made.

#2: Traffic is irrelevant to your blog's success: To paraphrase, it doesn't matter if a millon people read your blog, it matters if 50 people in your target audience find value in your posts. Take it offline for a minute folks, when you come home from a conference with a gazillion biz cards, what percentage do you actually take the time to pen a custom e-mail to? I bet it's around 10%, right?

#3: Loyal readers coming back daily to check your posts is so Web 1.0: Eric writes "As the blogosphere matures, the number of new readers and bloggers will decrease and loyal readers are going to matter more". (...conjures up traditional 80/20 principles, eh? ).

You'll have to go here to read all 10--and it's worth the trip. While I've not met Eric, his post impressed me enough to check out more of his musings.

A Nation of Web Couch Potatoes No More.

As reported in eMarketer today, a new report by Pew Research finds an amazing 35% of US Internet users have created and posted some form of user-generated content online. That amounts to almost 50 million individual content creators. Here's the snippets I find interesting (and inspiring):

#1) Passive no more: According to Pew, "[The Web is] shifting now to user-generated content; it shows people engaging with the Internet in a number of different ways in their lives. It shows that people are pretty interested in using the technology to put something of themselves on the Internet, not just pull down information from the Internet."

#2) Gettin' Creative: Far from being a passive pursuit, Pew researchers theorize that the Internet may actually foster creativity: "In looking across the different kinds of user-generated content that we probed, there is an element of the Internet being the medium for creativity and the internet being an outlet for creativity people bring to the worldwide web. Blogging and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, maintaining one's own web page, are creative undertakings that take place mainly at the keyboard."

#3) Gender Gap is slimming: Pew's research found that "Men are still more likely to post content online than women, but only by a 37% to 32% margin for all Internet users, and an even narrower 43% to 39% gap for broadband users." You go girls!

Report goodies are here.

Roxy, Rex & I: The War over Winning.

In my Mad Ave Journal Poll this week, I'm working to resolve an ongoing debate over when marketers win--and with whom. I've included an excerpt below, you can vote here.

One of my friends, I'll call her Roxy, and I have an ongoing debate. Each time Roxy's friend, I'll call him Rex, brings on a new client, he boasts, "I've won a new account!" Roxy thinks Rex's use of the term "won" is spot-on...I don't. While Rex has landed a spankin' new account, he hasn't truly won--not yet.

My reasoning: You don't win an account, you win over a market.

Winning, I tell Roxy, should be associated with customers, not clients. Battles may be won or lost in the boardroom, but the war for market share is waged well outside corporate confines. The hard work isn't getting greenlit after five presentations, it's cutting through the clutter of the modern marketplace.

Maybe Roxy's right. Or maybe companies like Rex's care more about dotted lines than bottom lines. You tell me: Does the hard work end when you've secured the client, or has it only just begun? Is your company more focused on clients or customers? Is your battlefield the boardroom (winning clients) or the market (winning customers)? Vote here (thanks!)

The NEW List: A BETTER set of best practices.

The NEW List is a set of relevant, rich practices for today's marketers. Why a list? Because navigating this new environment is much easier with a roadmap. While I've compiled this list, I'm hardly taking credit for it: some of the ideas are mine, most are not. A collective effort, each entry gives credit to the person who inspired it. A few disclaimers before I dive in:

• old meets new: You may run across some "old" practices on this list of new. That's intentional. Just because it's a new world we shouldn't abandon the old one's best teachings.
• many types of teachers: You may also see credit given to people who don't hold the title of marketer (e.g. bloggers, podcasters). Let's face it, we marketers are hardly the only ones with marketing savvy.
• it's alive!: This is a living document. A forever-in-progress post. New practices are founded all the time, so I'll do my best to keep up. If I've missed any please contact me so I can include them.

Here we go:

• Blogging isn't about blogs, it's about people. So simple and yet, so easily forgotten that it tops the list. Credit: Naked Conversations' authors Shel Israel and Robert Scoble.
• Markets are conversations. This goes without saying. But this list could not go without giving credit to the tremendous manifesto of Christopher Locke, Rick Levine, Doc Searls and David Weinberger (read and commit to all 95 theses).
• Your best sales force is FREE. Citizen marketers will champion your message better than any hired gun. The cost? Respect, responsiveness and authenticity. Credit: inspired by two sources, customer evangelists' Jackie Huba and Ben McConnell and the blogger behind Hacking Netflix.
• The new marketing paradigm is to insert your company into the slice of the user's mind that's reserved for valuable information. Credit: This new model was articulated by Paul Gillin.
• Post frequency should be driven by quality, not quantity. Quality not quantity should drive the number and nature of blog posts. Credit: Eric Kintz masterfully explains this here.
• Marketing is about listening. I say this a lot, because the majority of us don't listen to what our markets are telling us. So vital a practice, it drives my blog's mantra.
• The best marketers are storytellers. Successful marketers don't push features, they unleash authentic, dynamic stories. Credit: Master storyteller Seth Godin elaborates in his "All Marketers are Liars" book.
• Contribution is the new economy's new cost-of-entry. Be it software, smarts, technologies, tools, methodologies or models, all hail--and must contribute to--this contribution-driven era. I've been building a case for this one since last year, but I need to credit Thomas Friedman's book, The World is Flat, for inspiring the idea.
• Convergence is cool, but divergence is the driver of all innovation. I'll be debating divergence's virtues (and getting laughed out of many boardrooms!) until the day I die for this one. But hey, Al Gore is finally getting credit for his "illusions" on the global warming crisis so maybe marketers will start listening to what Al and Laura Ries have been saying for decades: here's an interview I held with Al on this very subject.
• We overestimate what happens in the short term, underestimate what happens in the long term. We're always disappointed by what doesn't take off in 18 months...and then dumbfounded by what we slept through in 5 years' time. Don't miss out on opportunities that take a little bit longer to develop, they're the difference between trends and fads--and your relevance. Credit: it was either Malcolm Gladwell or the authors of Freakonomics that said this (I'll get my facts straight soon but if you've not read both these books, then the double plug is warranted).
• When marketers abuse new media they inspire opportunity--opportunities for other people.I learned this in my interview with VideoSift--and it shouldn't go without saying that I learned it from a guy who was still in college at the time (that little whippersnapper!).
• The new PR is not about controlling the message's circulation, it's about facilitating the flow of information. If you want to build brand and promote your product, share news in a respectful way with popular bloggers. Respond to any member of citizen media with as much alacrity and care you would the mainstream media. Neil Vineberg articulates this here.
• Top-down marketing is imploding, and irrelevant. Now customers are driving your products, programs and messages so embrace bottom-up mentality. While this is obvious (I know, duh) it belongs on this list...though I don't know to whom I should be giving credit.
• Big names matter, big IDEAS matter more. Incredible what all you learn when you listen to people based on their ideas, not their search-engine rankings. This is why I interview all sorts and sizes of businesses.
• Marketers never had control, but social media gives us more control than ever before. Marketers thought they had control in the past, but all they had was the illusion that if they articulated a certain message to a certain group of people, then a predictable percentage of them would respond. That's no control, it's myopia. Social media allows you to interact directly with your markets. Paul Gillin discussed this in our interview. 
• Dialog trumps Monologue. Our new call-to-arms is to influence conversations not deliver talking points. Many have advised this, here's a post where I speak to this.
• Migrate from the traditional mindset of serving markets to the proactive strategy of creating them. When you serve a market that already exists, you are automatically a follower because some other company created that market. But when you create a new market you are automatically the leader. Al and Laura Ries discussed this leadership practice in our interview.
• The "new integration": left brain meet right brain. We marketers frequently jockey between left-brain analytical solutions and right-brain creative strategies but we need to be doing so as rule, not exception. Success doesn't rest on how well we integrate media platforms, but how adeptly we integrate logic + reasoning with imagination + creativity. Credit goes to Ted Mininni's article.
• Citizen media spans far more than "civilian" media. We often think of citizen media as a democratic platform for consumers, small businesses and enthusiasts but it's far broader, much deeper. I learned this in my interview with Sergeant Salmons, a soldier who blogs from Baghdad.
• Want Power? Then Give it Away (empower others). When Fiskars (developer of scrapbooking tools) ceded control to a group of scrapbooking enthusiasts, the customers became brand ambassadors who aptly named themselves "The Fiskateers" and host a lively blog and events schedule. While these enthusiasts previously existed, this community did not. 

That's the list...for now. But with all the change in this changing landscape, I've certainly missed some. So please notify me on what I've missed and to whom I should be giving credit (thanks!).