Mouthpiece

Why we asked attendees to not blog our Customer Conference

Several bloggers have commented on the fact that we asked attendees of our customer conference last week, CGM Summit, to not blog the contents of the event. I would like to provide some perspective.

First, Nielsen BuzzMetrics has been involved in numerous conferences and summits which had active blogging efforts, and we fully understand the power of running "networked" events – we live it every day and participate (and, hopefully, lead) in many, many ways. We are co-founders of WOMMA, and many of that organization's events have had active blogging components. We recently founded the Engagement by Engagement blog, which initiated by chronicling a recent ARF/AAAA conference. Many of our employees maintain either official company blogs, or personal blogs on related topics.

In this particular case, for this particular event, the agenda was primarily focused on presentations by clients, of their companies' case studies. Nielsen BuzzMetrics did only a portion of the presentations - the bulk of the agenda was driven by our clients sharing their experiences. It was a closed, invite-only event (again, we participate in many open events, but that was not the purpose of this particular event), and we specifically brought it to our clients as an "off the record" forum at which they could share highly confidential experiences with some level of comfort that those case studies would not be discussed outside of that room. Those who have had to go to their corporate communications department to get clearance to share a case study knows that this type of "off the record" environment is sometimes essential to getting permission to present or discuss this type of material.

The result was extremely positive - the level of sharing and interaction, both in the formal customer panels and in the informal workshops was deep and sincere.

Was it the right approach? We got feedback from most of the 100+ participants and our exec team has a meeting tomorrow morning to discuss it. Certainly, the feedback from the blogosphere will be heavily considered as well. But at the end of the day, the goal for this particular event was to provide value to our customers.

I don't know that we got it right, so I am eager to get more feedback. One approach that we discussed was to have proactive blogging of certain sessions which BuzzMetrics was presenting, but then make the customer panels and worksessions "off the record". Would this have been better? Are there other models which organizations are using which are effective?

Posted by Jonathan Carson at October 29, 2006 09:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Category: Point of View

Viral ad controversy is misguided

There is a lot of attention flying around all of a sudden regarding disclosure around viral video advertisements. As marketing via Youtube heats up (and the media world obsesses over Lonelygirl), there is a rash of concern about the fact that some of these ads are not clearly labeled as such.

I am pretty aggressive on the disclosure issue, but i think alot of this attention is way off-base. There is a particular bad action we should all be focused on: marketing which is meant to outright and permanently deceive the consumer. Think: paid models hiring a particular upscale vodka at bars, or mocking a newspaper ad up to look like its actual editorial copy, or hiring a spokesperson and positioning them as an objective third party.

But most of the viral ads that everyone is so worked up over are either a) inside jokes meant to be *wink wink* with the consumer from the get-go, or b) hoaxes which are meant to delight the consumer with the surprise that comes from discovery.

These actions are not deceptive. They are potentially highly irritating, but the punishment an offending brand receives already comes in the form of condemnation bythe consumers they annoy. A brand who goes down this path is putting itself at risk, and the 'invisible hand' effect of not wanting to look like a fool in front of your customers is all the motivation any reasonable brand will need to figure out where the line is, and make sure they don't cross it.

There will be a bunch of viral ads in the coming month that cross that line and bother, upset, or annoy consumers. And there will be others that will be really nicely executed and may even make consumers feel a deeper connection with the advertised brand. Agencies will learn the difference and to the degree that they don't, consumers will learn how to ignore the lousy executions (or software companies will build tools to filter it).

This issue will take care of itself, and we should refocus on the real problems.

Posted by Jonathan Carson at September 20, 2006 02:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (10)

Category: Point of View

Viral marketing = confluence of research that results in pass-along.

It is no surprise that “research” has become the most active area of focus within the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. In the unpaid space of WOMM, the money is spent on the upfront planning rather than the media buy itself. That idea is somewhat intuitive – but a recent Mediapost piece by Cory Teffiletti puts it in what might be the most succinct and coherent explanation I have seen:

Viral marketing is a phenomenon that occurs when the creative message you're trying to convey resonates deeply with the audience you're speaking to. If you're doing your homework and adequately planning the right messaging, with some incentive that clearly benefits the consumer, then viral marketing occurs. It's a confluence of research that results in pass-along and forwarding.

Precisely.

Posted by Jonathan Carson at September 10, 2006 12:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Category: Point of View

Creating WOM currency: Social Coupons

Totally cool idea on GigaOM about using spent movie ticket stubs as a word of mouth device.

It is quite surprising that more consumer marketing companies do not hit onto the fact that coupons could be great WOM catalysts. My dear Mom clips coupons for me at least once per quarter - I get a big packet of them in the mail. I have to admit that i probably have used a grand total of about one of them in my entire life (those Bed Bath & Beyond $25 off certs are nice; still, I'm sure many are more into coupons than I, and even for those of us who aren't clippers, we at least take a glance at them and log the media impression.

Some social coupon ideas to build on the movie ticket stub idea:

1) CPG brands should print two copies of coupons in newspaper circulars : one for the reader, and "One to Share"

2) Companies whose products' positive effects are visible to others should give out generous coupons to patrons who will represent them well - think gyms/trainers, hair stylists, clothing boutiques.

3) Further build on the movie idea: pass out one free ticket to the movie as people exit the theatre having just seen the show. True, you would lose some revenue, but few people go to movies alone (confession: I used to do it all the time!) and so it would at least turn into a BOGO (buy one get one) promotion - and really, its a play at the multiplier effect.

4) Same could work for CD's; just put a second copy of the cd in the jewel case, to give away. Nothing to lose - the buyer is probably just going to rip it and put it on p2p anyways!

Posted by Jonathan Carson at August 31, 2006 01:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Category: Point of View

The problem with contextual ads

It is intuitive that relying on keyword matching is potentially problematic for contextual advertising. But I have seen few examples in which the shortcomings of this approach scream out as badly as this one.

I was reading the obituary of a friend of my family in the online version of the local paper from Scranton, PA. The deceased was a Catholic priest, and truly an incredible human being.

At the bottom of a very passionate obit are two Google Adsense ads. One reads, “Free to join. 1000’s of pictures of Beautiful Catholic Singles”; the other, “Priest Sexual Abuse: Los Angeles Case Proceedings & News; Learn What’s Really Happening.”

Wow, that is a shocking way to end a tribute.

Faulty placements like this could be solved either with smarter filters, or with the use of some basic meta data or use of microformats.

Posted by Jonathan Carson at August 31, 2006 12:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2)

Category: Point of View