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.