Blogging with Corporations

The newest blog on e-marketer describes the trend of corporate America using blogs to communicate.  Originally blogging was looked down on by journalists, but now any publication that has an internet site has a blog with all their writers.  Blogging is becoming the future of journalism and more and more people are following blogs, while printed editorials following declines at a parallel rate.  The article estimates that 43% of firms will use blogs for marketing purposes by 2012 and currently 34% are.  That's a large increase in a short period of time, and considering that blogs have been around for a decade, this seems to be the wakening for blogs.  It has a focus on lead generation, brand marketing and of course the details of that corporate culture. 

Blogging has had a recent spike in popularity over the last 5 years, but not even nearly as drastic as other social media networks. (Facebook, Twitter) However the beauty of blogging is that it's both uncensored and uncut. As a blogger you don't fall prey to corporate rules or need to worry about it being restricted to a certain space. However blogger beware, this doesn't mean you have free reign on your corporate site.  One third of researchers, 'dig' into corporate blogs for information.  Also it should be said that anything you post on a corporate site reflects not only the company, but it's shareholders as well. 

Marketers alike need to take heed of many warning signs of failed upcoming tools (like the dot.com bust) and use blogging responsibly.  It only takes a few months of over saturation and user disinterest for this new marketing 'midis' to bust.   Tread carefully because if there's one thing that consumers won't tolerate long it's spam and annoyances.  So these corporate blogs can be very effective, but if they get followers they have to be respectful and tread lightly, for they tread on consumers fury.  It takes one wrong message sent or post to send your blog following down the drain, and good luck advertising to 20 people.  It also is worth noting that new markets will arise and blogging will fall victim to other social media, just like it did to Facebook and Twitter.  Technology is a hard market and they key to success is to be always evolving and changing. Staying idle is the same as sitting down in the middle of the freeway.  (It's technological suicide.) Once you have followers on your corporate blog, the advertising can be cleverly inserted throughout and ion the side of your blog. You can also add links all over your blog, but once again over saturation will drive the consumers away. However if your a great marketer, than you get people to want something they never knew they wanted. Like I tell my wife, she's the woman I never knew I always dreamed of. To be more practical Steve Jobs said on his apple blog, “It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”

As Seen on TV

According to E-Marketers ad "TV ads perform as well as made for web ads", the trend is great for brand awareness, when taking a made for TV commercial and running it online. It also says that the support leans towards made for TV ads over web made ads. I think this is interesting when understanding the budget for both.Typically TV ads are much larger and involve much more depth but when we looked at the Evian bottled water campaign on You-Tube, we saw how successful a made for Web ad can be. The other thing to be considered here is the resources for television are far more vast then what available to marketing teams towards the internet.
The most interesting thing that the article showed was that brand favor-ability went up on the internet in every age group by 1-2 percent.  That seems like it needs much deeper research as such a large jump in every age group tilts me to believe that internet ads are connecting with people at a much less generic level then television. It could be simply because the amount of people searching out topics and marketers being able to focus on a more detailed demographic.  It's less about attracting a large group then really 'snagging' the core group of your audience. 
Lastly neither ads had high completion rates, or watching it to the end. Interesting enough the food and beverage industry did the best on the internet (funny considering the high interest in Alcohol commercials.) while the TV ads did best for retail stores. That once again needs more details behind it like the demographic information or target audience and direction of the ads. Overall they both had there strengths and weaknesses, but it appears like the trends of late, that the internet is going to take more and more market share from other media/

Target

I visited the Target web site and The first thing that stood out was the deliberate color use of white and red.  The term white space, and the good use of it with contrasting colors or even large gaps to emphasize a picture or image.  Target uses dark colors that make each topic stand out, which is nice because it gives the site a certain equilibrium.  Their topics are clear and black, stand out and are organized logically (probably in order of frequency). 
Target's next marketing move was to use red for campaign items or action items.  They use the color red like M. Night Shamalyn in the Sixth Sense. You just see it on the screen without realizing the connection each red item has to the other. The shopping cart, coupons and the red card, all listed in red. You know what else?? In all the cases they get demographic information from you. Coupons an email account, shopping cart they get your name, address, phone, etc... This site is brilliant because it gives information from you willingly. 
The last thing Target does is repeat subject matter when appropriate.  for instance the Baby section is in black and then featured a quarter of an inch down in large font. Then a special is listed for a toddlers toy.  Now that makes three different ways to link to the same department on the landing page.  It's a great way to get people deeper into your site (along with the search bar and store finder) and keep them looking. 

Vikings vs, Packers

Of course after reading the heading you immediately thought, Vikings win. This is true. Actually that's the end of the important information but I guess we can discuss the evaluation I got back on their website. The Vikings web site received a 99 out of 100. In comparison it's rating (like Nielsen) is in the top 8 percent on the internet. The site is exceptionally well functioning and perfect for options.
It is very interesting that this marketing rating is directly tied into social marketing. Part of the criteria is it's link and usage through Twitter. The site and it's grade appear to be a little bias or at least driven to believe that Twitter is a marketing essential.  It rated the Vikings web site in the top 2 percent for social marketing effectiveness but doesn't include Facebook. (which by the way the site has a link too) However it does list current blogs and the tweets associated with those blogs and they maintain 'value'.  It appears that there is a huge elephant in the room when considering this rubric and it's accuracy.  Could you consider grading department stores and leave out Wal-Mart? 
My recommendations are first that they make there content a little easier to read.  It is currently rated as a doctoral level of reading, which is really high. Second i would suggest that they post more blogs on their site since it only listed 3 found. Lastly I would find it immanent that they try and appeal to users to have the site bookmarked. The Delicious site that is social bookmarking lists top links and if Vikings.com was one of them then it could drive more traffic, and traffic is exactly what you want. 
The last aspect of this is Packers.com. Quickly, it rated the same, but it's blog rating was lower (probably because packer fans can't write), it's reading level was undergraduate which a lot lower than the vikings (probably because packer fans can't read) and last the actual number of blogs was more than the Vikings. (proving that Packer fans have far too much time on there hands.) Overall the Vikings site, fans and team are just better. That's a fact, Google it. :)

RANDY MOSS

So I am actually going to try something different. Randy Moss is the most marketable person in the history of Minnesota.  His jersey 84 sold more than both the 98' NFL MVP and someone called Jerry Rice.  How do you market a product that can be so controversial.  The correct marketing of such huge personalities could result not only in huge revenue but also the publicity could carry over to a possibility of a new stadium. The Vikings are off to a slow start, and he will be presented as the savior of the team.  His presence will be accepted to the state like a son returning from battle.
The Vikings website has a huge opportunity here to market the sale of jersey's/tickets as well as use this publicity to promote the state partial funding of a new state of the art stadium. Make no mistake, without a great season, possibly a super bowl win, there is almost 0 chance of state senators approving such taxation.  I bring this up because we are at the beginning of a marketing campaign of not only the Vikings but of Randy Moss.  It's truly jumping in on the ground floor, and we can all critique or suggest things that could happen from here.  I will say this, as of now there are no mentions on the web site of Randy coming to Minnesota, however i think that this adds to the media storm.
The acquisition of old fans is now at an all time high.  The Vikings have the opportunity to attract a fan base that they may have lost in the last 12 years. The coverage is extensive and there hasn't been an opportunity like this since AP's second year.  People in Minnesota have a renewed sense of pride.  There is no more talented offense than the Minnesota Vikings.  Percy Harvin, Randy Moss, Sidney Rice, Adrian Peterson, Brett Favre.  Um is this an all-Madden team or are we serious?  Behold the power of marketing in Americans favorite past time. Feel free to comment as the weeks go on and look at the numbers that will be coming out about ticket sales, jersey sales, and promotions that are run. 

The things they make, make them.

Ok so that slogan doesn't sound as good when you reference it.  However it is clever and a testament to a quality tangible product line.  The landing page is put together well with new models switching with each other in the background/main page. (It's hard to call it just the background when it's the main thing displayed.)  Jeep seems to not only have put a lot of time into their vehicles (which is to be expected) but have brilliant people behind the scenes of their displays.
The pictures tend to take on a life of their own and are so integral.  It is apparent to me that a team was put together to match a vehicle with an appropriate environment, and make it stand out aesthetically. The Liberty is displayed from a lower angle and that projects dominance or can represent it atop a hierarchy. It sends subtle messages that we accept through our established environment. (Or upbringing/experience)  The sand below it and the light blue sky make contrast and make the Vehicle the focal point. They also take an angled shot to give a more 3 dimensional appearance or 'real life'.  All of the ads represent their prospective demographics and the pictures are so simple and well done yet complex in background and extensive in direction.
The next thing i noticed was that they had a Find a dealer button and an enter your Zip Code link on the same landing page separated by about two inches.  It's really a focus on Jeep to attain new customers and they seem to focus greatly on acquisition.  However with the life cycle of vehicles and the nature of the industry, Retention is growing less important than acquisition. Cars today are projected to last up to 200-250 thousand miles. That is nuts.  If i ran my old Ford 250,000 miles it would need so much maintenance i couldn't keep it.
Lastly i think that the brilliance behind Jeep's site is it's simplicity.  It offers many options for those who wish to look, but it focuses most of it's energy on display, and acquisition.

Grocery IQ

The article yesterday in the e-marketer posting was on how buyers in today's economy use shopping lists (91%) and rarely deviate from it.  The state of most people's finances is not currently well, and a list is a great way to limit spending.The key to success with marketers is that it isn't typical for people to list brand names, but instead items.
So now we face the challenge of acquisition of new customers. The best strategy by far is coupons (78%) and discounts (<30%) which can be issued right to stores as well as online.  (Manufact. coupons)  People will overwhelmingly choose the cheaper name brand if given the choice. The surveys taken in the article, show strong support that people not only want to save money, but also want a hand in it.  Consumers want the choice, so that it doesn't feel so 'discounted' and more of a bargain they had discovered. Trying to keep this balance is hard for marketers, but attainable. 
Applications are continually helping facilitate the consumers needs while improving sales to the retailer.  The new wave that will come will be a customer will make a list online, and then the application will use special algorithms to search web sites and online ads to find brand coupons for those products. A really good application would also take information that was given and draw coupon suggestions. Example:
    You type in bread, mayo, lettuce and roast beef. Then it searches for that but also suggests a special on ham and a coupon to go with it.
For most consumable retailers, this is the future.  If you can get people to consistently buy your product over the competition, clearly you will increase your market share.  This also gives the company who builds the application to have sponsorships and push certain retailers coupons more frequently.
More then anything else this new medium is great for initial sales but unfortunately does not contribute to retention.  People are simply looking for a deal so the CLV is going to be low as the turnover and the market share will decrease as competitors mirror your coupons and promotions.  The only thing i can think of is to offer special coupons on a temporary basis to retain registration information, and then send promotional offer. You could also give free coupons if they refer friends, or just really forward the message. In the end i think that if you want people to choose Cheeze-its instead of Great value, your going to have to save them some cheddar.

Barrel of a gun

For years retailers have been told that social networking is the future.  Company's have been bullied in to thinking that just because their is a huge future in social marketing that it was an absolute obligation for them to market there.  It seems that everyone is so worried that they might miss out on the future of marketing that they jump all in like a 2 year old a ball pit; sure their might be better ways to spend your time but what if? Has this become a fear based culture where company's are so worried that they might miss out that they will allocate funds so miss-appropriately?

The truth is that it appears that marketing firms have fallen victim to the very product they peddle.  Image.  Is it not amazing that social media markets have taken their large patron base and used it position themselves as the future of marketing.  It seems that the 'buzz' on Facebook is that it's the new marketing Google. 

The issue really is that a ton of company's are not fitted for social networking, or at least not right to allocate such large funds (up to 30 percent of their budgets) to marketing through these channels.  The article Consumers force retailers to adopt social strategy  states that company's are so scared that competitors are jumping in so heavily that they feel obligated to do so as well. So my question is this, is it so easy to demand from marketers when they are the ones who are supposed to know what the market wants.  Is it putting a gun to the marketers head, or simply Dennis the menace tricking his neighbor.

Post Season tickets

The Minnesota Twins website doesn't miss a beat.  I went to the site just after they clinched the division and they had an advertisement for postseason tickets. You can't just buy tickets, so what they offer is the ability to enter your name in a drawing to have the chance to buy tickets.  Here's the brilliant part...they get all of your demo-graphical information as well as your email address and mailing address.  A Marketers dream!!! Not only do they push a product that is in hot demand, but they are also able to promote next years season tickets and merchandise. 
Marketers spend millions of dollars to make consumers aware of their products, and the Minnesota twins haven't spent an extra dollar and raised awareness in themselves and their sponsors.  On the main page there is an interactive video that plays automatically of the highlights from the last game.   It draws your attention fast (which is located just above a Dove ad) and then before you know it you're watching the next video.
The last thing that they do very well is Market merchandise.  On the main landing page there is a Shirt/cap ad and under further review, if you click on different pages, you either get the Dove ad or the merchandise ad. it puts it on a side bar consistently and it;s not over bearing.  Lastly i give mucho props for their design and ease of use.  You can easily access just about anything you want, from single game tickets to statistics from historical years.  The best way to Retain customers is to keep them satisfied and not wanting. 
I do believe i criticized this site previously, but after comparing it to other MLB sites i have to say that i was in foul territory. (yeah i said it)

Customer Loyalty vs Acquisition

In the newest article from e-marketer, Social Media networking better Retention than Acquisition, there is a mentioning of how social marketing money is spent by the market. I found it relevant because it directly relates to Chapter 4-2 , generic direct marketing strategies.

The Acquisition stage is when you spend money attracting new customer.  This was originally a quarter of the spending, but now it's less than 15 percent.  The article calls out that large firms have started spending more money on  'cultivating customer loyalty' and no longer spends heavily in attracting new clientele.  (Also called Retention)
However it also states that the total money spent in this department has doubled, TWICE!!  The article goes on to say how it's because the smaller companies are using a larger portion of their budget on acquisition, while the larger company's do not see the value in that stage for this medium. 

To the large company's I say dumb. They spend millions of dollars on applications and little games, yet that doesn't add to customer retention. I don't see one practical way that their current methods are effective or actually meant for customer loyalty.  I also have not seen or heard of a great success story about a fortune 500 company that said 'I think we should allocate about 10 percent of the budget to new clients.  The rest, let's just make the one's we have happy by sending them Monopoly. Yeah that will make them think of our value proposition or mission statement." 

I believe that most people would agree that when it comes to customer satisfaction, adding true value to our purchases is more important then us playing your newly developed Burger King Game. (although if a company can put it together and produce a game like the farm one with 50+million people playing it, I'll put my foot in my mouth)  Unless this little trinket or gadget reduces cost or increases value or by some means makes my life a whole lot easier, your not really spending money on Customer loyalty, but trying to get more customers and calling it a different name. However BK, a rose by any other name....

Facebook Verus Twitter

The e marketer newsletter had an interesting article the other day. It was titled Are Twitter followers better than Facebook followers?  I read through the article and it spoke of how Twitter followers who follow a product online were buying that product 37 percent of the time compared to Facebook followers who only bought that product they 'liked' 17 percent.  The argument is made that these numbers support how Twitter followers are better and they make up about 3 percent of what Facebook does.  However the article also says how Facebook followers are more typical of an average consumer. Ahem.. I'm sorry, so you're saying the choice i have is marketing my $ towards a very small market who is more apt to buy but not at all reflective of the general public or spend that money advertising to a large demographic to see what works? Is that even a question? Either way it's going to have to be a great marketing campaign to get people to buy in but if I'm spending money I'm going to go ahead and get that 17 percent of 400 million and you can have the 40 percent of 15 million. let's see that equals out to be about 5.55 million for Twitter and 68 Million for Facebook.  If you have a wildly successful marketing campaign you might sell 75 percent of the market (generous numbers) so that puts Twitter at 11 million. So even at Twitters best they cannot compete.  (After further research it's estimated that there are 18 million users on twitter but still, not even close)  So I'll let you decide, would you rather have 600 percent more sales or a higher loyalty base?  It's not an exclusive club people, it's just bad business to advertise on Twitter. I'll put it like this would you rather spend the same amount of money advertising on Twitter (not actually on twitter or Facebook but on setting up applications and email for followers. The money isn't in getting people to follow or like you but the follow up) which would be a bulletin board at a elementary school, or a billboard off of the freeway?

If you can't read my Blog now, just TiVo it.

Yesterday I hurried home to watch a brand new episode of Tosh.O that aired an hour before.  How? Well it's a great little technology called a DVR or digital recording device.  I take it that i didn't need to explain why since i can expect someone reading a blog to understand what a DVR is. I also love the fact that i can fast forward right through the commercials. That my friends is marketing anarchy! In the article Live TV losing younger adults...it states that live television only makes up 41 percent of t.v. watched!! (ages 18-34) Now when you start getting to the older generations it seems that 64 percent seem to still use live television.  This should be absolutely alarming to marketers.  If you evaluate the marketing aspect of the value chain it appears that bu-cu bucks could be spent on trying to attract an audience that isn't even listening. A great example is the 300,000 dollars company's pay for t.v. ads during prime time television.  however with the target market continually moving into the internet and DVR age it seems that this money could be better spent online.  Online t.v. requires you to sit through a 20-30 second advertisement before watching your show, as well as three to four ads in between. You literally are required to watch them and they cost....wait are you sitting down...less than 1,000 dollars.  That's right you can reach your target market 300 times for the same price!! I don't know about you but sign me up for the internet ads.  At least with this it completely cuts out a retailer or network and you can save money.  Disclaimer: if you are marketing to the 55 plus crowd, keep your ads between noon-5pm and spam the hallmark channel not YouTube.

<---Like's this Post

In the Text by Roberts, it says that 88 percent of online Americans use the internet as a part of their daily routines to communicate with family and friends.  It is no surprise that marketers saw a golden opportunity when social networking evolved from book clubs to Facebook.  The internet article The The Thin Line Between Liking a Brand and Liking it's Social Marketing, the community was asked as a whole why they "Liked" certain brands on the Facebook. The top three responses were to get coupons, get free promotions, and to show others your support of that company.  The internet has allowed more than any other medium, to market one to many campaigns or mass media marketing.  The details of the brand are simply a clock away and it registers every person who likes them. The best thing about social networking is that is also allows for large promotional campaigns to become personal and individualize their message.  Pepsi for instance can run a large marketing campaign aimed at middle class Americans and list deals on Facebook which allows for them to expand the initial variable. How lucky is it that they can jump right into someone's conversations like they were the third person in the alley on a smoke break.  This ability is exactly what marketing firms have dreamed of for years. How can they truly personal sell without becoming overbearing.  Hey why not jump on the band wagon and send your friend a ice cold Pepsi image on Facebook. It's fast (which the text describes as a pivotal driver) and requires no effort except a small reminder to pick up a twelve pack next time your at the grocery store.  For that I click on Like on my page and post my favorite marketed products right between my status update and baby pictures.