Webinars Now! - Best Practice

What's your take on webinars? Do you use this 1 to many medium to increase sales?

Another older article I want to address as I clear things off my desk... Worthwhile? You decide, I only blog to add value...

Some facts from B2B magazine, 10/08:

• Webcast market 2014 - 3.4Billion - reach "more people for less"
• If you can't go face to face...webcasting is an excellent way to reach your audience...
• Webinars "allow you to engage in a conversation at a deeper level with customers."
• And you can track participation extensively!

Best Practices:

• Identify targets and create content just for them.
• Send invitations well in advance.
• Engage & monitor your audience.
• Don't make a sales pitch. "Don't make someone come hear you talk about you, you have to make it about them."

Wow, this last point - is there a clearer way to say it? Maybe I'm being hypocritical as a blogger, but these concepts aren't mine -- I'm just bringing them to my humble reader's attention...

• Last one, which I consider "numero uno" -- Follow Up - Give this some context. But within reason, what else really matters... If you have something to say, why not say it? Don't make someone do all the work on their own. This is known as The Close...

From Ad Age's CMO Roundtable...

Wanted to present some interesting ideas from a webcast posted today via Ad Age: http://adage.com/print?article_id=125823

Although the use of TV was part of the focus of the CMO discussion, I thought there were a number of useful insights that should be repeated here, primarily on the use of media in today's advertising environment. But first, on the role of TV today, these CMOs believe that:

• TV has always, and will continue, to play an important role in building immediacy and awareness --- and now that there are more media options, the growth rates in "cost per thousand" for TV are starting to slow
• TV is still the only media that can provide truly massive scale and a forum where people can come together and actively experience the same content together (e.g. Super Bowl)
• TV is still the consumption channel of choice for a wide variety of users

But, to segue, as Bob Stohrer (CMO, Virgin Mobile) states "There is a balance between immediacy and awareness that TV still delivers that a communication plan should be architected around." Some other factors that should be considered relative to media spend/strategy:

• CONTENT is still KING - greater specialization in content and media will continue
• People want to interact with your product/brand in different ways --- teens consume media (YouTube, etc.) differently than Baby Boomers (some still read the newspaper)
• Now that there are so many media options it is easier to establish relationships with smaller audiences using more specific methods for fewer $s

From a marketing standpoint, it is a very exciting time. The variety of tools available has never been larger --- the challenge now is to focus on the right ones for your audience. The good news is that, if you pay attention, they will let you know what they want.

"Innovation is not a Strategy"

Forgive the posting delay --- too much going on. I wanted to start back by highlighting an article from Al Ries today (in Advertising Age: http://adage.com/print?article_id=125470 ) on innovation.

His take is that --- "A business enterprise has only one basic function: build a brand that can dominate a category" (a la Jack Welch's be #1, #2, or get out...). Innovation can help get you there, but as a method, not the goal.

Some really good thoughts on this:

• "Most brands don't need innovation, they need focus. They need to figure out what they stand for (or what they could stand for) and then what they need to sacrifice to get there."
• "Innovations outside of a brand's core position can undermine the brand."

How do you feel about innovation? I recognize its importance as a business concept, but still think that success is still a function of how well that innovation meets a user need - which is usually tied to a fundamental insight .

It's not innovation, in and of itself, that is important. It's a particular product's ability (through "innovation") to adequately meet a critical need that ultimately determines its success.

So riddle on that one. Thanks Al!

Moving media buys back to the agency...

So I'm not getting my usual reading fixes, and posting yet another piece from WSJ, this one on Publicis and their new joint venture Optimedia Inside.

Interview with Publicis USA CEO, Susan Gianinno:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120287513864964733-email.html

According to Susan, the goal of the JV is to reunite media buying with the creative and planning functions that take place within agencies --- disciplines that separated over time as media purchases became more and more specialized.

The interviewer does a good job of addressing a critical issue --- the disconnect that has developed as agencies developed according to discipline, and then collectively began working independently on aspects of large client accounts as members within a larger holding company. After a while, marketers can begin to feel like they are double paying for services, as they pay for planning within digital, media, and consumer areas all at the same time. As a result, unified branding becomes more difficult as agency specialists focus on different consumer insights. But as Susan states, the problem is more complicated than that, and client organizations are often even more siloed --- something that I can attest to.

In my humble opinion, the reality is that substantive change is difficult for "the establishment", and that can mean the "old guard" marketing (or agency) types that have benefited from older organizational structures, and simply don't have an incentive to evolve. Hence, it's not an "agency" problem or a "marketer" problem, it's a complacency issue that plagues both.

Since a large number of marketing groups are not recognized as strategically important functions within their organizations, status quo thinking is allowed to continue. It's only by taking a long, hard look at connecting with customers, and then unifying those insights in a meaningful way --- on both the agency and client side --- that truly ground-breaking work gets done. Here's to hoping that this effort is a move in the right direction.

Leveraging Social Media for Brands

Came across an interesting article recently in 1to1 Magazine: "Monster Energy Assembles an Online Army" that reveals how one company's social media efforts have evolved (link: http://http//www.1to1media.com/View.aspx?DocID=30644).

Monster Energy originally established a presence at extreme sporting events that was meant to help them collect demographic data on their audience, and that effort led to a companion website.

Organizers quickly realized they needed to provide a reason for visitors to spend time there, and the site's focus moved to:
- helping fans learn about amateur athletes
- helping participating athletes attempt to get sponsored
- allowing participating athletes to distribute information about their performances (e.g. schedule, photos)

Although unclear about the length or budget surrounding this effort, Monster Energy has been able to attract 58,000 users, they have built a demographic database, and they garner visits that run 7 minutes on average.

Do those metrics translate to incremental revenue? Based on the information here, it's uncertain, but this effort certainly provides some insight into how companies are trying to make these efforts pay off, either through increased relevancy, and ultimately, higher sales.

The site also allows Monster to get a pulse of this community, and to evolve with the community as new talent emerges --- blurring the distinction between social media and sponsorship. Just one example of some of the interesting things taking place in Web 2.0...

Yahoo, Microsoft and online ad spend

How do you feel about your online advertising options if Microsoft's takeover of Yahoo is successful? Although the jury is still out, the general view is that this marriage would be good --- and bad.

Good: A Yahoo/MSFT union would put pressure on Google, and reduce the overall cost for key word search (aka paid search), as the cost of certain key words goes down. By becoming a stronger overall search option, more advertisers would seek to buy terms from Yahoo, and overall prices would go down.

Bad: Online display ad prices could rise. Since there is not a dominant player for banner advertising, the Yahoo/MSFT combination would reduce existing options somewhat. The net effect is still unknown.

Some things to keep in mind as you think about this:
- According to eMarketer, keyword search will account for $11 billion in advertising spend this year.
- Breakouts for that spend today: Google 28%, Yahoo 15.4%, and MSN 6.5%
- Online display ad spend projected this year: $6 billion

Keeping up with changes in the online landscape is difficult, but you can rest assured that the move online will continue, and having another online solid provider might continue to accelerate that move.

Case Study: LifeLock

After seeing a full page ad in the WSJ today, I was intrigued by the approach that this identity theft company is using to promote it's service: http://www.lifelock.com/.

In the ad and on the homepage, the CEO provides his Social Security number, and talks about the services that his company provides. The message is simple and compelling --- and I suspect it will be very successful.

The funny thing is, the company actually provides very little that a consumer can't do in about an hour (every three months) to protect their credit; and although the company doesn't directly acknowledge this, they do liken their service to an oil change, and effectively try to convince their audiences that their time is better spent elsewhere --- and for many it probably is.

One final word. Some may have a tendency to discount advertising like this - it's very "direct mail copylike" and the service is simple. Be careful not to do that. I would liken this to the early days of AOL, a company that I mistakenly dismissed early thinking "Who doesn't know they can just use a free browser to access the Internet?" By moving early, building awareness, and adding a little simplicity to the process, AOL grew very quickly early on. The first mover advantage sustained them well beyond what many believed was possible.

Creating Ads vs. Products

Second post related to WSJ's weekly column in the Advertising section of Marketplace "Questions For...". This week's expert is Jonah Disend, CEO of Redscout, recently acquired by http://www.mdccorp.com/ (topic of a recent news story and an interesting topic for another day).

Link to article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118472713268269964-search.html?KEYWORDS=jonah+disend&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month.

If you think about the role of Product Development and design today, it's easy to see how run away hits are becoming more prevalent (e.g. iPhone, Heineken Light) at least in part as a result of the way they are packaged and tied to the overall brand.


Some worthwhile observations he made (in bold below) that I'd like to discuss below:

The difference between the "advertising" mindset and the ideal "product development" mindset, which is --- Advertising: "How do I add brand value through communications so that I make them want it?" vs. Prod Dev: "How do I add value to the thing itself in order to drive desire?"

He then cites examples where marketing mindsets often prevent people from really identifying the true customer insights that create value --- "identifying a new behavior that is begging for a new service offering". Marketers get so busy promoting the product itself, they often fail to recognize the fundamental needs that are being addressed and/or underserved. In our defense, few truly are empowered enough with the responsibilities they've earned to undertake a meaningful review of this kind - CPG brand management being a notable exception.

Losing sight of the original goal - getting so attached to a particular idea that the actual reason for the idea is forgotten. Although he mentions this in the context of product development, I've seen this happen on multiple occasions within marketing/advertising. A particular execution is so "clever" that although it misses the fundamental consumer insight, it is adopted because it is seen as distinctive. Message: Keep "first things first", i.e. the fundamental goal --- and don't get too attached to the execution.

The source of good ideas: "We believe that a good new product idea or brand comes from a combination of a consumer insight, a marketplace opportunity and is attached to a cultural thread or trend which helps to give the idea currency".

Some very good insights that are important for any marketer to keep in mind.