Home            Blog
Showing posts with label 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2013. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Brands Missing Out On Audience Development

Brands Missing Out On Audience Development

by , Yesterday, 6:37 AM
Subscribe to Marketing Daily
rohrsAs powerful as digital publishing exec Jeff Rohrs believes content marketing and social media can be, he kept noticing something odd: Lots of great brand content, but no real plan to make sure the right people found it. “There was a giant hole in all the conversations I was having, and this persistent, old-fashioned idea that ‘if we build it, they will come.’”
His contention is that brands need to do a much better job developing digital distribution strategies, leading him to writeAudience: Marketing in the Age of Subscribers, Fans & Followers. Rohrs tells Marketing Daily what he thinks is missing. 
Q: So tell us more about this organizational sinkhole.
A: Within companies, everyone's responsible for producing their own stuff, often thinking about it on a campaign or even day-to-day basis. So there is someone making sure stuff gets re-tweeted. And there's often a director of content marketing. But there was no equivalent title of, let's say, “senior director of audience development.” And that means lots of missed opportunities. The assumption is that there was this bigger, engaged audience ready to eat that content up, but then there is no person or team to make that happen. My point is, that should be a core marketing responsibility.
Q: Is there an example of a brand you think is acing audience development?
A: Here's a fun one. Here in the Cleveland area, there's a restaurant called Melt Bar and Grill, which is a gourmet grilled cheese restaurant. The chef and owner is a big rock ’n’ roll fan -- the menus are on old LPs, for example, and he has rock ’n’ roll designers do the posters announcing specials. One of his favorite bands is “Rocket from the Crypt,” which gave free concert admittance to anyone with a band tattoo. He took that idea, and now gives 25% off food and drinks to anyone with a grilled cheese tattoo. He was thinking he'd get 5 or 10 people. The Melt Tattoo Family now has over 500 members, including one guy who'd never even been to the restaurant. In effect, these people are all going on tour with the restaurant, and it's an audience in the digital but also in the physical realm. These people are all amplifiers -- word-of-mouth powered by technology. It's audience development in the best sense, and a way to make sure customers will come back over and over.
Q: Who is doing it badly?
A: I don't like to call brands out by name, but if you look at last year's Super Bowl advertisers, you'll see plenty -- almost none had any kind of call to action in their ads. One car company, for example, paid something like $3.8 million for one spot, advertising a car that wasn't coming out for months. The final frame was just the logo and a Facebook URL. That's a huge leap of faith. They should have done something to encourage people to opt in to some kind of direct relationship: Email us, follow us on Instagram. Something. 
Q: So it's a lost opportunity?
A: Yes. If we get people to enter into a permission-based marketing channel, it lowers my cost to reach them and speak to them. That car company missed a tremendous rollout opportunity.
Q: What's another success story?
A: Oreo. So much has been written about “the tweet heard ’round the world” from last year's Super Bowl, as if it's a social story. But it's not. It's an audience story. In the “Whisper Fight” spot, which is set in a library and aired early last year, it asked people to follow the brand on Instagram, which seemed like a head scratcher then. But it’s now the fastest-growing brand on Instagram, and rewards followers with photos of sculptures made out of cookies. It's got 34 million Facebook fans. And plenty of followers on Twitter. 
Q: Could you clarify the way you define subscribers, fans and followers?
A: Subscribers come through SMS, YouTube, and mobile apps. Email is the most linear and still drives the most traffic, because it's the most convenient. Fans are your virtual water cooler, and they pay attention to brands when they do something astonishing, either good or bad. (My beloved Cleveland Browns are an example.) People may be quick to like a brand page, but that doesn't mean they've given you permission to market to them. And followers are audiences with audiences, so, yes, they follow you on Twitter but then they are creating their own streams, with ripples of their own.
My point is that each of these is a distinct channel, and if you market on Facebook like you do on email, you won't gain anything.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/213173/brands-missing-out-on-audience-development.html?edition=66826


Friday, April 26, 2013

Social Search Engine Marketing Throws Search Experts A Lifeline


Social Search Engine Marketing Throws Search Experts A Lifeline

by , Yesterday, 1:57 PM
Subscribe to Search Marketing Daily
Anchor-BAside from smartphones and tablets, social search engine optimization has emerged as the next focus for many marketers in enterprises during a time when more C-level execs continue to give attention to search engine optimization (SEO), video offers search and social opportunities, and small and national businesses capitalize on local search, according to a study released Thursday.
Social signals continue to make their way into search results --making social search engine optimization the next major trend in organic listing. Enterprise SEO requires a search across traditional techniques and social media channels. Some 49% of the survey participants said social sharing will have more importance when it comes to improving search rankings in 2013 compared with 2012, followed by 31%, much more importance; and 19%, about the same, according to results of a BrightEdge study, which cites Forrester Research numbers suggesting that search engine optimization will become a $2.2 billion industry by 2016.
To improve SEO ranking with help from social, marketers must understand the exact correlation between social sharing of pages and rank. Identifying this correlation and analyzing the content being shared helps marketers reinforce what’s working and what's not. When asked how important it will be to understand the correlation between social sharing and page rank, 47% of survey participants said more important compared with 33%, much more important; 19%, about the same; and 1%, less important.
Understanding topics will also become "more" important when it comes to social media users and sharing information. The key will be identifying user interests expressed in social media and catching consumers' attention by providing content that targets these interests. Some 45% said it will become more important this year to identify trends, compared with 24%, much more important; 30%, about the same; and 1%, less important.
When asked to name multiple social media channels that marketers will focus on this year, some 86% said Facebook; 68%, Google+; 43% LinkedIn; 41%, Twitter; 29%, Pinterest; and 25%, YouTube.



Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/198917/social-search-engine-marketing-throws-search-exper.html?edition=59262#ixzz2RZG4qtdw

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

A recent study of selfishness in negotiation has interesting results


The Dictator Game: Justifying Selfishness in Negotiation

 / MEETING FACILITATION
In a recent study of selfishness in negotiation, Fei Song of York University and C. Brian Cadsby and Tristan Morris of the University of Guelph had participants play the “dictator game,” adapted from experimental economics literature. In this game, Party A is given a sum of money to allocate between himself and Party B. Because Party B has no power, Party A’s allocation goes into effect without debate. The dictator game captures the essence of negotiations in contexts with an extreme power differential.
Song and her colleagues compared the behavior of people who played the role of Party A on their own versus those who made the allocation decision as part of a two-person team. The authors also compared how males and females behaved in the role of Party A. Male participants were significantly more selfish when they represented a team than when they acted alone; female participants were less influenced by whether they represented only themselves or a two-person team.
The results for males were broadly consistent with past research by Professor Kristina A. Diekmann of the University of Utah, which showed that negotiators are more selfish when they can attribute selfish behavior to their group rather than to themselves. As David Messick of Northwestern University has observed, football coaches don’t justify the decision to take a new position by saying, “I want more money.” Rather, they tend to say, “I need to protect the financial interests of my family.” Obviously, the two statements mean more of less the same thing.
Song and her colleagues raise the possibility that female negotiators are less influenced by the social context of representing a group. These results shine new light on claiming behavior as it relates to gender and whether negotiators act alone or as part of a team. Specifically, when negotiators begin to reference their family, department, or team, they may be about to claim more than their fair share of the pie.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Dispute Resolution, NHL style


Dispute Resolution, NHL style

 / DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the early hours of January 6, the National Hockey League (NHL) and the NHL Players’ Association (NHLPA) concluded a 16-hour mediation session by announcing they had reached agreement to end a 113-day lockout. The deal was finalized a week later, and the players returned to the ice for a shortened 2012-2013 season on January 19.
The dispute escalated as the two sides faced the task of negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement beginning in July 2012. Citing a desire to bring player salaries in line with those of other professional U.S. sports leagues, the NHL opened with an aggressive proposal to reduce players’ percentage of hockey-related revenue from 57% to 43%, among other demands.
Offended by the proposal, the NHLPA held off a full month before delivering a counterproposal. Donald Fehr, the union’s lead negotiator, put forth an offer that separated player salaries from league revenue, slowing the growth of player salaries, and dividing revenues saved among financially struggling teams.
The team owners accused the union of ignoring their demand to greatly reduce player salaries. When the two sides failed to reach agreement by September 15, the expiration date of their existing contract, the league locked out the players and began cancelling games.
Weeks of cancelled game turn into months, and the season threatened to go the way of the NHL’s 2004 labor dispute, which led to the cancelation of the entire season.
The players eventually agreed to a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue with the NHLPA. But the two sides remained at impasse on other issues, and a breakthrough didn’t come until federal mediator Scot L. Beckenbaugh entered the picture, according to USA Today.
When face-to-face negotiations got heated, Beckenbaugh separated the two sides and engaged in shuttle diplomacy, visiting each side in turn to identify issues where they were willing to be flexible.
The two sides reached agreement on a host of issues, but their deal ultimately hinged on the issue of player pensions. The team owners agreed to establish a pension plan similar to that of Major League Baseball players, with the teams making significant contributions to grow the plan. Previously, players were solely responsible for making voluntary contributions to the league’s retirement plan.
The agreement allowed NHL players, whose careers are often short, to concede on the short-term issue of salary in return for peace of mind regarding their long-term financial future. Winnipeg Jets defenseman Ron Hainsey, a key negotiator for the NHLPA, called the pension plan the “centerpiece” of the deal, reports USA Today.
The deal suggests a valuable way for business negotiators in all realms to break through thorny disputes: expand your focus by looking for tradeoffs that cut across time periods. Specifically, consider offering a long-term gain for the other side in return for a short-term concession that you value highly. By looking beyond the immediate future, you may be able to identify new sources of leverage—and resolve your dispute.