CK's Blog

Social Media Risk vs. Reward: Your Market Is Not Waiting For You To Be Relevant (psst: neither are your competitors).

At the conference I spoke at last week, I cited relevance (and risk!) in my presentation, as well as in several other workshops when I addressed how best to transition companies to social media environments. I explained that risk is UBER important to assess, as a company has a responsibility to its customers, employees, shareholders and other stakeholders. But even though social media means that your brand's reputation and message is far less within your control, companies can take steps to dramatically manage risk. How?

Companies can manage risk through establishing a social media policy, identifying a handful of employees to be the brand's spokespersons on social media platforms and provide social media training for their employees so that they're not flying blind in this thriving, dynamic new region that is The Social Web. Plus, companies can start out through small steps and, once they gain a comfort level, they can broaden the volume of initiatives they implement and the resources and budget they attribute to them.

And the best way for companies to manage risk? Ensure that their company, and all of its departments, are delivering upon their brand's promise, value proposition and customer expectations (which are expectations that the company has set through its marketing, sales and communications, so the company should be consistently delivering upon them).

But when it comes to relevance? Folks, once you've lost relevance with current and prospective buying audiences, then it's--poof!--gone. And at that point you'll need to build it back inch by inch, while your competitors are already miles ahead of you. They're gaining market share while you're working to gain ground. Where's the innovation in that strategy?

Remember, just because your company is not actively participating in these media does not mean that the conversation waits for you. Conversely, the conversation just flows on without you. I'll repeat that last part as it's pivotal to understand... it flows on withOUT you.

In fact it's flowing on without you right now.

What's worse? Your competitors aren't awaiting your participation, either. Nope. They're enjoying first-mover advantages, as they already conducted the risk vs. reward assessment. So you can imagine my delight when I ran across this article citing feedback from companies on this very point. According to the piece:

"Last week, executives from companies as varied as Wal-Mart, McDonalds, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Mayo Clinic gathered at General Mills’ headquarters in Minnetonka to discuss the opportunities and concerns presented by social media. And one thing became clear: For now, companies seem more fearful of being left behind than they do of losing control."

While relevance isn't necessarily calculated as a "hard" performance benchmark like, say, revenues, much like trust (and ergo, credibility), once relevance is lost, it's amazing just how important "Getting it back!" becomes. So make sure that the social media conversation that you hold inside your organization about the social media conversations you wish to hold outside your company does not only focus on the concern of how to manage risk--and the fear of losing control-- but also on the very real threat of losing relevance.

Because losing relevance is the biggest risk of all, no?

Social Media Tips • Social Media *Extras* • Social Media Training • Contact CK

B2B Social Media: Top 10 Reasons Why The World Is Your Web 2.0 Oyster.

In a Web 2.0 World brimming with MySpace teens, Facebook fans, Celebrity Twitterers and blogs about cute kittens, it's no wonder so many B2B companies view social media, and the Social Web, as strictly a "consumer play."

That mindset, however, is costing B2B companies potential revenues, new customer relationships, unparalleled reach and, quite frankly, their relevance. Even worse when B2B companies realize that this opportunity loss isn't something that's being done to them... but due to something that they're simply not doing.

While I'm pleased to see quite a bit more Web 2.0 movement and participation from B2B players, I frequently find myself building the "B2B Social Media Business Case" when walking professionals through the multitude of programs, tools and strategies now afforded to them. I'm happy to have these discussions as, aside from it being part of my role to transition companies to these new media and new practices, it's rewarding to see the looks on executives' faces when they connect the dots and ... poof!... social media becomes (really) relevant to them.

Yet along with explaining the world of social media opportunities now available to B2B companies, I also need to illuminate that the world is not awaiting their involvement. Nope. Because unlike all other media, customers now have the very same tools of creation, communication and sharing that companies do and thus, customers are moving forward at unprecedented rates and quite potentially moving onto other companies that are actively using social media to build relationships with them. 

Moreover, their competitors aren't waiting on them, either. Hardly. Those smart companies are rightfully enjoying first-mover advantages in their respective sectors due to so many companies sitting on the social media sidelines waiting for others to move first. But what is innovative about waiting for those you compete with to make the first move into qualified markets? You guessed it, not a single thing.

So, in the case that you, too, are working to nudge more B2B companies into Web 2.0, here are 10 key points to help you build the B2B Business Case for using Social Media:

Marketers, Social Media Makes YOU An Influencer, Too.

If there's one thing in social media that the marketing community analyzes like crazy--and marketers target like heat-seeking missiles--it's online influencers. In building relationships and respect with online influencers, marketers work to gain entry to the communities of prospective customers within which these individuals hold influence so as to increase brand awareness and brand sales. So it's a strategy with much merit.

But as I often tell my clients, it's FAR from the whole story of “social media influence.” While the trusted, popular people that have amassed large followings are no doubt important, they are not the only influencers wrought through social media participation. Nor do they wield the only type of influence that aids marketers in their efforts, and impacts their company’s success.

Viewing The Social Web as a new "region"... not just a new marketing channel.

When companies globalize and enter foreign markets, a critical success factor that they’ve learned--and many companies have learned it the hard way--is that they must first understand a new region before marketing to the region’s citizens. Otherwise they increase their odds of failure, instead of upping their rates of success.

The exact same principle applies to social media and, more to the point, to The Social Web. After all, The Social Web is not just a new marketing channel, it’s an entirely new “region," given it's a place that boasts such attributes as thriving communities, cultural nuances, a set of rules, common values, accepted practices and a preferred code of conduct.

Web 1.0 truly was a new channel and gave us unprecedented efficiencies for communications, marketing, research, sales, service and support. Google gave us a new way to research stuff, Amazon gave us a new way to conveniently buy stuff and eBay gave us a new way to sell all sorts of stuff. Companies led the way and we were able to connect to the Internet and these company's offerings.

But with Web 2.0, people lead the way and we're able to connect to each another. Because with social media, people now have access to the same media tools as companies, and people, not companies, create and share the majority of content... so it follows that people (not companies) set the rules and fuel the space's growth.

It's not that people no longer need companies in this environment, they just don't need them in the same manner. And instead of being customers of a particular brand or users of a particular technology, people are members of a particular community--and many times they are members of several communities spanning personal and professional interests.

Psst! Both your brands AND your social media programs must provide distinct sets of value to your markets. Yep, Both.

A social media presence is important for today's brands and yields various points of ROI for brand marketers. (I've published an exhaustive (!) list of the many value points here.) But still there seems to be a big enough misunderstanding by enough companies, that it warrants some clarification.

You see, it’s not only how your brand creates value for audiences offline but how your social media initiatives and involvement creates value for audiences ONLINE. Value that complements your brand's value proposition... but value that is both separate and distinct.

In fact, your audience should receive value from your social media programs even if they do not purchase your brand. Why? Because that value will encourage them to discuss, recommend and perhaps even purchase your brand.

For example, if I visit a blog by, say, a professional services company and it provides me with thought leadership--be it a new methodology, new viewpoint or new set of tips for handling age-old challenges--then I have received value from their blog (and I might even hire the company or refer the company to others).

But if that blog were merely a regurgitation of their press releases and product pitches? Then I would receive no value (and their perception would decrease in my mind). No-brainer, right?

Wrong.

You'd be amazed how often brainy companies blunder this principle.

The BIG Shift

Recently I met with a group of professionals who don't work in the technology sector and are just starting to dabble in social media (or perhaps it's more accurate to say they were just starting to dabble in the idea of using social media). The group I was speaking with were curious about all the buzzwords and hype they keep hearing. More to the point, they needed to better understand how these technologies affect them and their specific business environments.

As I explained to them, what we’re witnessing, and navigating our way through, is The BIG Shift.

While this shift is bolstered by technology--both Web 2.0 and other tech innovations--its effects cut across all industry sectors, be they professional or consumer. You see, Web 2.0 technologies are remarkable because they shift content creation and control from marketers to their markets. An unlike all other media, people, not profit-driven companies, fuel the growth of this space. In this era, consumers aren't waiting on companies to "get it" or get on board. Nope. Empowered by these tools consumers are fully equipped to move ahead all on their own.

From influencing the purchasing decisions of people located all over the globe... to building active communities and establishing mass movements... our markets are now leading us.

Via these technologies we're now able to reach more of the world, so geographical borders are of little relevance--with the voices of the so-called little guys reaching (and influencing) many the world over. Equally compelling, while technology levels playing fields and make for a world that’s more “flat,” the global connections and relationships that these innovations enable make for a world that feels, and seems, much smaller.

Web 2.0’s growth is fueled by REGULAR PEOPLE, not profit-driven companies. You'd be amazed how many professionals do not understand this fundamental principle--so please tell all your friends.

Other media, through their offerings and services, target regular people, but social media is comprised of them. In fact, Web 2.0 is the only set of media that places the dynamic tools of creation and communications in everyone's hands.

Sure, twitter is growing by leaps and bounds. But even more extraordinary, as pointed out in last week's Time article, is this:

"In short, the most fascinating thing about Twitter is not what it's doing to us. It's what we're doing to it." (The exact same thing applies to Facebook and other platforms.)

More to the point, when companies launch Web 2.0 initiatives the success of them rests on whether they can engage enough regular people to contribute to their platforms, and tell others to get involved with them. Those audiences might be consumers or professionals but, I assure you, they are by and largely regular people.

And, as I've said again and again (and yes, again):

The story is not that social media enables us to connect to the world. The story is that, given access to one another, the world is now actively connecting (and swapping stories).

Regular people. The vast majority of them using FREE tools. To freely voice their likes, dislikes, rants, raves, passions, preferences, pain points... and, yes, a lot of what they're doing/eating/watching on TV at that exact moment.

Think of it this way: just as there would be no television networks without programming created by studios and no magazines without columnists and reporters, there would be no social media if not for the people using these tools to (1) create, innovate and share content and (2) building communities and networks around their interests.

So where we needed CBS to fuel broadcast TV, Life Magazine to fuel print magazines and Amazon/eBay/Google to fuel Web 1.0, we need the everyday tweeters, diggers, MySpacers, Facebookers, commenters and bloggers to fuel social media. Ergo, unlike all other media, every day folks (regular people) don't just consume this space's content, they create it... and in turn, power this space.

Now, will companies lose money in this space? Yep. Many will falter at their first attempt and a bunch of offerings will never get off the ground. But this notion of a "Web 2.0 bubble bursting and dying!!" would mean that people, like, millions and millions of them, would suddenly *poof* burst--and worse, die. 

Marketers, welcome to the 'New Transparency' (and if you think that means "full disclosure" then you're missing the full story).

In the Web 2.0 environment, when companies are marketing with social media, you’re bound to hear the word “transparency.” And you’re bound to hear it a lot. Thought leaders exclaim “Transparency is critical!” because people appreciate honesty. Actually, they downright expect it.

For example, if an employee from a company that sells, say, trucks, start participating in online forums that are discussing trucks and the employee starts chatting up how a specific truck (that their company manufactures) is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the employee doesn’t disclose--nor does the employee make it obvious--that he works at that truck-manufacturing company, then the employee has not been transparent... because he has not been up front about his truck-promoting agenda.

And that’s a BIG no-no (both online and offline). Further, by not disclosing any product bias or affiliation, it not only reflects poorly on the professional, but far more so on the company for which the professional works. It's a rule that all companies should abide--because when we disclose there is no deception, or question thereof.

Plus, if you don’t practice transparency in your communications, you’ll eventually, and many times quite quickly, be “outed" for not being transparent, since you did not fully disclose your position or agenda in your marketing programs and communications. And this is when controversies, backlashes and boycotts ensue, which place the reputations of both brands and companies at great risk. It's simply not worth the negative consequences. To be frank, it's not even an option for companies worth their salt given it's so highly unprofessional.

But that is not where the implications of transparency in this new era start and end. Nowhere near. The 'New Transparency' is not limited to employees (and promotional representatives) disclosing their professional affiliations to brands, it extends to users disclosing their personal experiences and perceptions with brands--and doing so in front of your entire brand audience.

Want to master high-tech marketing? Start by going really low-tech.

Over the past three years it has been a sheer pleasure to write this blog and, more so, to learn from all the brilliant minds who publish so many great blogs. In so doing, I'm afforded the advantage of participating in a dynamic professional community that is constantly teaching me new ideas, remarkable insights and breakthrough methodologies. I even learn new ways to tackle age-old problems.

And in an economy based on sharing--with its fervent exchange of ideas, expertise and knowledge--my learning curve is constantly at full tilt as I'm gleaning so many different views and viewpoints. I grow, and my work grows better.

But even in my avid personal use of these media, and in my use of them professionally, one thing I know for certain is that nothing... not a single thing... can replace the value received through hands-on, face-to-face training.

No amount of books, blogs, conferences, e-conferences, ebooks, checklists, podcasts, position papers, Webinars or Web tools can equate to the level of impact that on-site instruction and professional guidance yields.

(And if I’m wrong on this premise? Then not only am I owed a whopping sum of cash back from college tuition fees, but business school owes me a mountain of money back, too.)

A book doesn’t answer you. A blog might not be able to answer you right away, or address the specific challenges you have at that moment. A conference is a space where you are but one in an audience of many. And during a podcast, you can’t interrupt the professional to clarify a complex point... you can only rewind the podcast and hope that you grasp that point when listening to it a second time. Or a third.

Oh the things those (fear!) demons make us do. The only thing more dreadful? The things those demons make us NOT do.

I've come to the realization that I'm not a marketer. Or maybe I should say I'm not only a marketer. Over the years, my role has evolved into 2 parts marketer + 1 part guide + 1 part therapist. 'Twas not intentional. But it's certainly called for in these disruptive times.

Because in transitioning companies to social media requires my tapping into all these roles. Why? The short answer is: fear of the unknown. Marketers now find themselves in uncharted territory that's defined by change and rife with ways to falter.

And hey, that's scary stuff.

You see, Web 2.0 (aka "social media") is more than a set of new technologies. Conversely, social media heralds an entirely new era that places customers in control because it puts dynamic media tools within everyone's reach. As a result, it changes so much of what marketers have learned up until now--and has companies of all shapes and sizes scrambling to keep pace with consumers. My how things change, and quickly so.

Exciting times? Definitely. An age that's ripe with revenue opportunities? Most definitely. Scary era for marketers? Definitely x infinity!

So while the marketer and the guide part of my role helps me teach companies the opportunities and best practices, and facilitates the necessary shift in their mindsets, the therapist part of my role is laser-focused on their fears. Because fear tends to make us not act, instead of take action. And we want companies to be proactive in their use of these new tools, not paralyzed by their fear of them.

Thus, it is here where we let the (fear) demons loose. Oh if only I had the budget to stream some CGI graphics where I could simulate demons encircling the room... maybe one day.

To get it right, start with asking the right questions.

I've written posts aplenty on how imperative it is that marketers--before diving into social media--truly understand this environment, both the tremendous opportunities it poses for companies and the best practices it demands from them.

Because Web 2.0 isn't just a shift in one's media spend but a shift in one's mindset. 

In recent months, I've also posted on how much upfront work is necessary before you get to the actual work of building out your social media presence and programs. Because while many things have changed in this new era, the need for a solid strategy and strong plan absolutely have not.

And a strategy warrants due diligence which means marketers need to do their research, assess their options, address their challenges... and come to a lot of answers. Yet, to get to the right set of answers you need to ensure you're asking the right questions.

(While this may seem obvious, you'd be amazed how often companies, even though they don't plan to fail, do fail to wisely plan.)

So, on that note, I've created a set of questions, organized by category, that can serve as a nifty checklist for companies when approaching this space. But it covers a lot (!) of ground so I've published the list on its own page right here.

(Happy Planning)

Whether or not you like these tools doesn't matter (it NEVER did). What matters is whether your markets do (it ALWAYS has).

I've been seeing (and mainly hearing) several of my very brainy colleagues talking about how they find so many Web 2.0 tools downright inane. To be fair, many label them "just plain stupid."

Last week alone I spoke to 3 of my talented peers about this subject and was astonished at their stance. I was not astonished at their personal preference-- hey, use the tools or don't, I don't care as that choice is certainly not mine to make or impose upon another. It's up to each and every person. Oh how I love choice.

I'll only suggest my colleagues use these tools when I think they might find value in them... and if it were me, I'd be happy that my colleagues wanted me to participate since it signals that they value my opinions and like my company.

But what's astonishing (read: myopic) is when they take their personal preferences and apply those to their markets. And that's when I become mouthy.

Because we shouldn't be speaking for our markets, we should be listening to them speak to us--be it through their feedback, media preferences, product consumption and so on.

Making Sure Your Brands Don't "Boob" With Markets

A business can easily charge more when a person super-sizes their meal. Yet it's not so easy for companies that charge more due to a person's size. And a company can charge higher fees for users needing more bandwidth when hosting multiple Web sites. But it becomes very tricky when a company scales its prices according to personal width.

One certainly pays more for an SUV than a hatchback because the SUV isn’t only richer in features, it’s more robust due to its sheer mass. And we don’t mind paying more for products that are of a genuine (or perceived) higher quality than those of lower stature… just look at the price of any branded product on your local supermarket shelf compared to the generic one it's stacked next to.

In air travel, people now have to pay a premium when toting more of their stuff on the plane, or they get a discount for not using as much cargo space with their luggage. And while that has outraged some, it’s nothing compared to the heat airlines are facing in attempting to charge a higher price of plus-sized passengers that need more than one seat during their flights—even though that airline only has so many seats to sell during any given flight, and cannot otherwise recoup those costs and losses.

And that brings us to the recent debacle on boobs. Or, more specifically, the pricing of some bras supporting them.

British retailer Marks & Spencer, known for its reasonably priced lingerie, began charging more—as much as $3 USD more—for bras sized DD and up. And their brand met with some mighty backlash from their market.Find out the scoop, and all the marketing lessons when facts give way to feelings, over at my most current column at The Daily Fix. Oh don't be a boob... hop on over there right now.

Sheeple, Kings, Popularity Contests and the Platforms that beget them.

Seems I’ve spent the past week a split personality. On the one side I’ve been promoting the living daylights out of the ego-free, breath-of-fresh-air that is Susan Boyle.

And on the other? I’ve been balking over Ashton Kutcher’s popularity contest that smacks of nothing but a super-sized ego. (No, I really don’t want fries with that.)

But balk as I might--and plenty of opinions have I--Ashton Kutcher's "Twitter Challenge" not only brought him tons of publicity, it gave us all a front-row seats to many marketing lessons. Ironically, in this new dawn of new tools many of the lessons reflect age-old principles.

To learn about the promotion and read my take on all: come join me over at The Daily Fix for my latest column.

(Yes, sheep, kings and egos are involved. Come check it out!)

Hold the Plastic Marketers, Your Markets Want Pure.

In my latest column over at The Daily Fix I'm talking pure, not plastic, and the tremendous benefits of creating platforms that level, not limit, playing fields... by breaking new ground through removing old barriers.

I use the incredible story of Susan Boyle as a prime (pure!) example of this model.

My message? Don't fake and force authenticity---you'll fall flat every time because, no matter your budget, you can't bottle the stuff--focus instead on creating platforms that allow innovation, new products, services, markets and, yes, stars, to be discovered (or uncovered).

Trust me, this world has enough plastic.

The post is here.

(And thanks to Women Unlimited, a site out of the U.K., for also running the piece!)

In challenging the leader, your biggest challenge is perception (not your product).

Warning: this post contains spoilers from the movie “Bottle Shock” (released in 2008), and while the film is based upon historical events that occurred in 1976, please do not proceed further if you’re planning on seeing the movie--or don't like learning about history. And now that you've been warned, movie spoilers and marketing lessons shall now commence...

I recently watched the movie “Bottle Shock", a film based upon the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 commonly known as the “Judgment of Paris”, a blind wine-tasting competition between French and California whites and reds. Until this time, French wines had a corner on the market, with California wines considered posers or bargain-basement drinks commonly found in dorm rooms.

The event was organized by Steven Spurrier, a British wine merchant with a shop in Paris. Spurrier was not an advocate of California wines, in fact at the time he only sold French wine. But he desperately needed promotion in order to increase profits.

Hungry for exposure, and to be taken seriously, the Californians were excited to be a part of the promotion. And the French were open to the challenge because they considered themselves unstoppable... after all, their wines were legendary. So one could say it was a duel between ambition and arrogance. To the surprise (shock!) of all, California wines rated best in BOTH the white and red categories.

Here's the trailer for more context (RSS readers click through to the blog to view):

Now, the Californians wouldn’t have won had they not put their all into an exemplary product. But the product wasn’t the problem. Perception was. And that’s a devil if ever there was one in the marketing craft. Because people love surprises, upsets and underdogs--but they don't much fancy their perceptions being challenged. So the facts need to be irrefutable but they need to be presented creatively. And that's where marketing comes in.

The takeaway for marketers? In challenging leaders you’re competing against perception FAR more than product. So you need to identify strategies and tactics that will level the playing field--so as to cut through the thick layer of perception. In this instance the taste-testing competition was “blind” with all wines only being judged on taste, color, odor. But in order to really break through the insights need to be presented in a manner that excites and amazes people so that they celebrate their surprise... in this case it was the French who were judging the wines.

The other takeaway? Once myths are shattered, your product can break through, but so too can others. As the competition didn’t just open the long locked-down playing field to the Americans--but the entire world. At the end of the movie the event organizer explains:

“We have shattered the myth of the ‘invincible French vine’ and, not just in California… we’ve opened the eyes of the world. Mark my words, we’ll be drinking wines from South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, China. This is not the end, this is just the beginning. Welcome to the future.”

In 2006, to mark the 30-year anniversary of the event, they held another competition. The Californians won.

Again.

PS: For a show that is based upon leveling the playing field for talent--and a STUNNING perception-bending surprise, enjoy this segment.

Going green needs to take a lot less gray (matter)

In reading this article today, I was brought to the site of an agency (TerraChoice) that has developed a laudable, inspired program to cut down on the act of "greenwashing." What is greenwashing, you ask?

Greenwashing is "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service." To that end, the agency has created a nifty campaign titled, "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" and you can download the report in full...as well as a wallet card that will aid in greener purchasing.

The wallet card is especially neat as it breaks down the information into an easier format featuring six questions--that map to the "six sins"--for consumers to use as a guide when making product purchases.

Overall, the campaign is darn cute, well-intentioned and handy. In other words, all the oh-so-clever things I rave about.

And here comes the BUT.

Problem is, even in a great format, we are still asking consumers to do a lot of critical thinking. According to the six questions, consumers will need to assess areas like (1) hidden proof, (2) vagueness, (3) irrelevance, (4) fibbing and a few more.

That's a lotta action points.

With. Every. Single. Purchase.

What's more? We're asking consumers to do this critical thinking when they're at places like the supermarket.

And at the hardware store.

At WalMart.

But navigating through the metropolis that is your local WalMart--with two kids in tow, no less--demands an abundance of focus and energy on its own, no?

Yet what so many marketers--the six sins being but one example--are expecting of consumers is to assess if the product they're about to buy is really green, just sorta green, too suspicious to be green...or the same product with a tree next to its logo for good measure.

Not gonna happen. (I'll bet green money on it)

With big-ticket, high-involvement purchases--like cars--then, sure, people are prone to run through a battery of internal Q&A before acting. But that is the purchase exception and far from the rule. The rule is that people don't have that type of bandwidth when making every day, split-second purchase decisions.

And it's those everyday, split-second purchasing decisions that will have the most impact.

The fact is, besides large companies making viable choices in how they can operate more efficiently--and getting global buy-in from major energy economies like China, too-- it's the gazillions of actions and billions of purchases that consumers make day-in/day-out that are going to make the BIG differences.

Some of those actions include unplugging your cellphone charger when not needed, decreasing AC and heat usage by a few degrees or bringing your own re-usable bags to the grocery store. Others will be to buy more efficient light bulbs and greener cleaning supplies.

The other problem? Marketers (of course).

Marketers pore through hours of copy and brainstorming sessions to plot how their product can claim green-ness. Some marketers can easily claim this, others have to bend the truth. And others outright lie.

Even the agency's CEO knows we're asking much too much--this is how the article ends: "With such a barrage of eco-messages slapped on products these days even McDougall concedes that "the six sins of greenwashing" might be too much for consumers to remember when out shopping.

So, in a nutshell, what's his advice? 'The most essential guide I can offer consumers is; choose the product that appears to be doing its best to educate you, to offer you information and in precise language.'"

Ergo, winning the green fight--or winning "green revenues," depending upon how you look at it--is an object lesson in simplicity (and, I'd argue, believability). That does not mean it can't be creative, but it needs to be simply so.

Regulatory agencies are going to need to lay down the law of what can be green-stamped and what constitutes greenwashing. But marketers need to make this process easy if they want for consumers to buy in and, um, buy from them.

Because if I can't spend the time vetting six questions--and I'm a marketer in the 1% who obsesses over product messaging in my local supermarket--I can promise you that the remaining 99% won't either. Sustainable strategies for greening the mainstream is what I seek (and in marketing Mother Earth, simple is my mantra.)

PS: As for fellow marketers? The wallet card and that full report are very much worth checking out right here.

In a summer of superheroes how's about we make the hero LESS super?

So far this summer we've had Iron Man, BatMan, the Incredible Hulk and, I think, Hellboy is coming back. And I've likely missed one or two. (Does Indiana Jones qualify as a superhero...or just a super character?)

Granted, these superheroes are not only super, they're also grappling with the responsibilities of being, well, super. After all, being super is a lot on a person--even if you're made of iron, have a smokin' batmobile, came from hell or give new meaning (and green muscles) to the definition of "getting angry".

And now that I've lumped all of those superheroes together, I'm going to turn my attention to the one movie that stands apart.

It's titled Hancock, a not-so-super-of-a-hero movie. (see trailer below, RSS readers click through to the blog to view). Sure, the character can fly and beat people up. But he apparently causes more collateral damage than goodwill. It's not that his character is hung-up on brooding about his lot in life... he's just hung over.

His flaws, which make him more real and less hero, are not his true problem. Apathy is. It makes for sloppy work, warrants for his arrest, a public relations crisis and a personal journey that is exactly the stuff upon which successful movies are made (oh how we love to watch our characters transform their lives.)

And that makes Hancock different than the rest. Different is good for brands and it's very good for stories (and many marketers say a brand is a story). As a result, I suspect this movie will do super at the box office. Time will soon tell. (update: my prediction was right)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not advocating sloppy work, apathy or drinking. I'm encouraging "different" thinking because that leads to innovative branding. When you position your brand as far as possible from "all the rest" instead of the "best of all," then all the rest no longer matter. Because you're in your own league now.

And when you're in your own league you're far less concerned with outdoing your competition and far more focused on perfecting your own act. So let the rest be heroes because you're truly super.

Here's the trailer...

Now here's a clever way to get your market to be your marketer

When it comes to including your audience in an oh-so-2.0 way, I have to say I'm delighted with the idea and execution of this Weather.com promotion below. And who the heck knew that David Berkowitz could be such a ham for the cameras?

(Seriously folks, David has been a dear friend of mine for years and I had no idea he could be so, um, dramatic!)

This video was taped at the Mobile Marketing Forum he attended last week and Weather.com succeeded in getting him to their booth...keeping him there...getting his buy-in to promote their brand...and having him advertise for them thereafter at his own blog. If I were a sports metaphor kind of gal I'd say that's a home run.

Moreover, David has a keepsake that gives him value by giving the readers of his blog--and now readers of this blog--some entertainment. Clever, indeed.

Logistically speaking, between taping an introduction by a Weather.com correspondent that is re-used scores of times over, an all-purpose script, some digital film, a teleprompter, branded microphone, branded jacket and employees to compile the videos, I'm betting this was a cost-effective marketing tactic, to boot.

Alas, for my long-time readers, I'm glad to report that I am finally happy with an advertisement featuring David's mug since THIS other type of 2.0 ad strategy that used his name and face didn't please this marketer a bit. RSS and email subscribers please click through to the blog to view the 1-minute video below. Enjoy ;-).

This post is about Karaoke. Except not really.

This weekend I went to Karaoke with a few of my friends. One of them is a pitch-perfect singer, one is assuredly not.  The crowd was equally split between people who use Karaoke as way to get their singing fix and those who just want to be silly.

To be sure, I fall into the latter group as marketing, not music, is my expertise.

I've not done Karaoke a tremendous amount in my life; maybe three or four times all told. It's an absolute blast and I enjoy it, but it's never been an entertainment activity that I pursue on a regular basis like, say, film or theatre.

And while Karaoke was a brilliant invention, this post isn't about the activity or the technology. It's about the man (the host) who was facilitating this particular show. He was a Karaoke master.

Except not really.

While he had a perfect voice, quickly got many people up on stage (and then got them off the stage), had top-notch equipment and an affable disposition, his gift is the most natural form of marketing that I've seen in some time.

In fact, I enjoyed watching him as much as I did the vast--and varied!--range of characters crooning to hits spanning the 50s -90s.

Why was he so good? Because he helped everyone look better. Be it shaking the tambourine to complement their particular musical selection, chiming-in to provide them a real-time back-up chorus, ensuring that everyone got a chance to sing, helping them muster their courage when starting out a song...or helping them get back on track when they got lost between lyrics...his facilitation led to a more excited crowd (energy is crucial in Karaoke), a more relaxed group (thus, more participation--as Karaoke is not so fun when only 4 people do a zillion songs each) and a crowd that will come back for more of his shows...and refer him to more gigs.

Because when you stand out, people notice when your brand is missing--be it from supermarket shelves or other Karaoke venues with mediocre hosts (who only facilitate the efficacy of the tools, not the experience).

And while the Karoake equipment is his tool, his facilitation technique is his true product/brand...with his attention to detail and customers as his differentiators. Sure, anyone can buy equipment (Karaoke machines, microphones, an exhaustive library of songs, a set of top-notch speakers). But tools are just that and are easily replicated.

Those that are gifted, or are just natural marketers--no matter their profession--place their focus on their customers (instead of the tools). And thusly, those are the brands that win hearts, minds and market share. Because those are the brands for which there simply are no alternatives.

Amazing how many companies and professionals focus on tools, not craft, and focus on equipment instead of customer experiences. Perhaps they, too, need to attend this particular Karaoke show to see natural marketing in action.

Oh, my Karaoke selections included songs from Garth Brooks, The Beatles and Journey. I botched all of them equally. I'm sorry I didn't get any of these on video for you to enjoy; I truly wasn't thinking ;-).