Social Networking - The new SPAM vehicle?

Recently Facebook launched the ability to post your Facebook status updates to your Twitter profile, the first 'official' move towards integrating the two biggest social networking sites of the moment.

To most aficionados this probably seemed like a great step forward, even if most had already used 3rd party plug-ins to achieve it previously. The fact it was Facebook who took the step just makes it that bit more official. Obviously the main purpose is to make social networking and sharing your 'valuable' messages easier. What worries me is the potential for this to be used/exploited, un-targeted by anyone!

It has taken years for the email marketing world to develop and convince marketers that only appropriately targeted messages, sent to the right audience at the right time is the right thing to do. Add the development of inbox policing to increased targeting, email marketing is at its most sophisticated it has ever been.

So, the brave new world of social networking has taken a drastic step backwards by making un-targeted, mass-distributed messaging easier than it has ever been. These tools not only make it easier and faster to send messages to followers of all social networking sites, it also removes the thought process of developing the right message, to the right audience at the right time.

When constructing a marketing strategy a marketer would have to think about each channel, although coordinated, as separate channels with different vehicles, different audiences, different characteristics. Why are the individual social networking sites any different?

So, the question is, will social networking become (or already is) the new SPAM vehicle that will take years of pain and hard work to correct, just like email?

Could RFM transform multi-channel marketing overnight?

Last year I bought a car and had it insured. Before I found the right deal for me, like millions do, I searched through aggregators such as Compare the Market, Confused and more.

These websites are great, especially when you realise just how competitive the market is and how much quotes can vary.

The downside is the aftermath, the constant, unabated intrusion into my life!
Within hours of requesting quotes I received calls from a wide range of insurers, all eager to discuss my needs. What's worse is that you rule out some insurers instantly when you see how much they cost, so when they call you, it's just annoying.

Anyway, I chose Admiral as they had a good deal for new drivers (which I was). So there it was, I had insurance and didn't need to worry for 10 months, as this was the period of insurance. After the 10 months I renewed as it was part of the deal and worked for me.

What I didn't anticipate was the huge amount of phone calls, emails and letters in the post from a handful of insurers, eager to capture me from Admiral. The worst offender was Swinton Insurance. I received four identical letters (personalised to me and my car, but no quote), a postcard and a phone call in the space of two weeks!

Now, the complication is that I have Home Contents Insurance with Swinton, so they probably thought I was a good target. What they didn't do was relate my car insurance to the fact I was a Swinton customer, at all, so did they make this connection at all? Also, why so much correspondence in such a short space of time?!

The obvious questions are 'How much does this cost per lead?' and 'What ROI is there?'. Taking into account printing, postage and call centre staff, it could end up being a few £s per customer, which isn't too bad if conversion is good. However, is the excessive correspondence putting people off, and could the frequency of contact be better designed and coordinated?

I suggest that when they begin to contact prospects they should follow some simple rules:


Send a simple reminder early, do not send a mass amount of correspondence in such a short period of time. Make sure it's coordinated and each message adds value and has purpose;

If they are a current customer for another product, relate it to them, make them aware of what great service they're already receiving or offer some incentive. Current customers are easier to cross-sell and retain;

Do not send the same message twice. Each time a new message should be used. If the first message didn't work, why should the second?!;

To acheive this is simple with the right mixture of data management, segmentation and thorough campaign planning.

By analysing the rich data which they have gathered from the aggregators, combined with their current data set, they should be able to appropriately segment and target prospects. Moreover, when the segments are identified a campaign can be built that can anticipate their recency, frequency and monetary value in order to hit the right people, at the right time, with the right message in order to recoup the best return.

RFM within online marketing is under-developed, but is beginning to take centre-stage in some retail sectors. Combining multi-channel data and marketing communication, RFM could transform traditional offline marketing too and would take little investment to get right.

Are We Still Concerned About Being Green?

With all this talk and ultimately, real impact of the now confirmed recession, have companies re-focused their attentions in order to get us on their side?

For the last few years companies have been concentrating on "green", "eco-friendly" and "carbon neutral" products, services and branding. Even when scientists, geologists, politicians and executives were split down the middle on the facts or when we didn't quite understand what it meant, we were told it was the most important thing to worry about.

Companies became advocates of the "carbon footprint" magnifying glass and we all lapped it up.
Unfortunately, the world can't afford to be "green" any more so it seems. We're all too worried about where the next pay-packet is coming from, how our jobs are being lost, how our banks are in turmoil and how our currency is devaluing almost as rapidly as our homes. Now all this serious, it will make and break people and the world will see tough times in the coming years there's no doubt.

However, what has happened to company's commitment to being "green"? Will the big "R" word take over?

The BBC branded their coverage from the start, calling it "The Downturn", the supermarkets have heightened their competitiveness with aggressive campaigns, sales are to be found everywhere and everyone is trying to save you money.

What I have seen little of is the same levels of commitment to being "green" as we did a few years ago. Are companies still committed to it or was it all a smoke-screen from the start? Do they only tell us what we thik we're meant to hear?

What this tells me about a company is that their commitment is based on what the main talking point is, not what they believe to be central to their proposition and brand.

The companies that come through the other side of this recession will be those who have customers who not only use them, but love them. We only love people who we trust, care about and who give us the same back.

Think about how you "sell" your company, products and services, think about how your customers perceive you. Make sure you are committed to the messages you give, as if you flitter, people may begin to think they can't trust you, care about what you have to say and ultimately, love you. And you know what happens to companies who don't have customers who love them.

Are Virals Permission Marketing?

If you’re like me, you probably hate adverts, they get in the way of what you’re trying to enjoy. I can’t stand listening to commercial radio because of it. One song, three minutes of terrible adverts, a bit of talking, then another helping of terrible adverts. As Seth Godin elaborates in his book ‘Permission Marketing’, this “Interruption Marketing” no longer works.

Marketers need to be cleverer, they need to get the audience involved, wanting to hear the message. This could be as simple as “can’t afford to miss” opportunities, or they could be indirect affiliation, such as with most sponsorship.

With the Internet comes a great mixture of these two worlds. We still need to
put up with “Interruption Marketing” in the form of pop-ups, banner ads and
more, but there is also the concept of the “Viral”. Is “Viral” “Permission Marketing”?

Some “Virals” are nothing to do with companies, advertising or commerce at all. Some are just hilarious or topical content getting a wide audience through word of mouth. However, some astute marketers have embraced this and it seems to be a great way of getting across a simple message or to simply get the brand out there.


Two great recent examples are the insurance comparison site CompareTheMarket.com and their “CompareTheMeerkat.com” campaign and another is the “Design an Ikea Whitehouse” from the furniture retailer to coincide with the Presidential inauguration.


These sorts of “Viral” campaigns are still “Interruption Marketing”, they just have extra value that bring entertainment, comedy, interesting word of mouth qualities and can be embraced by the Internet.

Using Social Media to proliferate such campaigns, they become organic once the campaign is out there. What could your company offer that could generate such synergy from a combination of a simple commercial message and a great “viral” vehicle?

Hallelujah! Survival and growth without risking your prized assets

Recently we had another X Factor winner paraded (forcefully) into the limelight once more. Now, I don’t watch these programmes, I don’t really support them, but there is one good thing about them. They continually support, develop and extend the public’s love for music. Yes, there will always be pop stars, there will always be heavily marketed pop stars and there will always be cheesy, harmless, charisma-lacking songs available. Is that really a bad thing? Does everything have to be high art or thought-inducing, “real” music? No.

Until recently the music industry has resisted the new digital age. Only now they (sort of) have got an idea how to manage and distribute digital downloads have they embraced it as a reliable, profitable income stream. Some people (such as me) still want to buy a CD in the shop, I love nothing more than owning, holding and reading the package. I have never downloaded a song and I claim to be an Internet Marketer! Fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and they are getting cheaper and retailers are biting the dust (MVC, Music Zone, Fopp, Zavvi) quickly.

In times like these all companies need cash cows, fantastically reliable products that are guaranteed to create turnover, and profitable turnover at that. The X Factor is this for the music industry, TV, radio, magazines and more. We live by celebrities and we buy because of them too. The X Factor creates a story; a lifestyle, a star, a song and more importantly, we all buy into it.

Now. The song part was filled by a beautiful, yet depressing, hope-building Leonard Cohen song, immortalised by a certain Jeff Buckley. There’s nothing wrong with covers, I like covers, and I like “Hallelujah”. I don’t mind people doing exact replicas as covers; it’s not the end of the world. Not everything can be ground-breaking!

Unfortunately Jeff Buckley fans took exception. I am a Jeff Buckley fan. I love his voice, his songs, and “Grace” is in my top ten albums of all time. I did not take exception, but secretly supported “his” side.

Now, what this did was create a media frenzy, a chart battle we’ve not seen for years and powered by two of the music industry’s “evil enemies”: The X Factor and digital downloads. Were it not for The X Factor there would be no frenzy and if it were not for downloads, Jeff Buckley’s version would not have entered the chart.

Has the music industry come to accept and encourage this? I say so, and they are taking advantage of it. All good and progressive.

However…….

Only last week I had the TV on in the background. I heard “Hallelujah” come on, it was the Jeff Buckley version. I then saw his face. I was thinking, “is this a video?” Well no, I’m watching a TV programme; it’s an advert. I was thinking, oh great they’re pushing his (one and only) album; new people can enjoy what I have enjoyed. Then my worst fear occurred. It was a ‘best of’! A what?! He made one album! How can you compile a ‘best of’ of a person who made one album?!

This upset me. Why did they need a ‘best of’? Are they so desperate to jump on the back of The X Factor to push an unnecessary product down people’s throats? Just get them to buy “Grace”, push a respected, quality, well-loved product!

Have they devalued Jeff Buckley’s almost immortal brand by doing this? In my eyes they did and all to make a quick buck.


So, my point in all this…….

Progression and finding new revenue streams is great, it means you can survive after fearing the worst. Making this into your new cash cow means you’ve come a long way and survived the worst. The X Factor and digital downloads have done this for the music industry.

Creating new products for new markets based on existing ones is a great way of recycling and repackaging without the need for new R&D (or A&R in this case). Creating cover versions and re-packaging existing albums has done this for the music industry.

However, taking advantage and exposing your prized assets to knee-jerk, opportunist marketing attempts isn’t always good use of this. It can devalue your product, alienate existing customers and put off new ones. Making a Jeff Buckley ‘best of’ did this.

The recordings and publishing rights in the music industry is its life-blood. It is the prized asset. Combining this with immortalised, well-respected and well-reviewed artists creates legendary status, a long-term money maker.

· What advances in technology can help you through this economic disaster?
· What products can you repackage, develop or re-brand and sell to new markets with little effort or cost?
· What are your main assets and how can you avoid devaluing them?

Answer these questions and you will come out the other side with a healthy business.

T-Mobile and Multi-channel hell!

Recently I started a new job and realized that I’d be making a short, yet tedious train commute. My immediate thought was that I could snooze, maybe listen to music or read a book. I only had 20 minutes there and 20 minutes back, with the potential of delays (this is Britain, we do have the least efficient train system in the world!). This meant I had plenty of time to fill.

I then realized that I could potentially do some work on the train, meaning less time in the office and more time to relax when I get home. So I bought a netbook. NOTE: this is not a discussion about netbooks!

The next piece in the jigsaw was to find a way of getting online using my shiny new netbook.

I’d heard lots about mobile broadband, but I was put off by the price and the potential that it just wouldn’t work so well on a moving object, under electrical lines, in the middle of nowhere (Warrington to Crewe)!

I already had a fantastic web service on my mobile phone with T-Mobile, so I investigated the potential of using my phone as a modem. After some investigation, my Nokia N95 could do the job; all I had to do now was speak to T-Mobile.

I called their sales number. First I tried the old “I’m a loyal customer, I’ve heard about these USB broadband dongles, give me a whopping discount!” That didn’t work. So I then asked, “Is there an alternative to paying you an exorbitant fee by using my phone as a modem?” The answer was no, I could only use the data allowance browsing using my phone and not by connecting it to a computer. I was dejected.

In a severe case of coincidence something magical, yet frustrating happened the next day.

I recently moved out of my parents’ house, but most of my mail still went there. I visited home to pick up my mail and there in the pile was a nice piece of Direct Mail from T-Mobile…….

DM: “Did you know you can use your phone to access the internet”

Me: “Erm yeah, we’ve had this conversation!” (Yes I was talking to a piece of card!)

DM: “Text XXX to 150 to switch on Web’n’Walk Plus for only £4.95 a month”

Me: “you told me I couldn’t!”

So, as it transpired I did text XXX to 150 and upgraded. It was terribly slow and I couldn’t get a signal on the train, so I cancelled. But that’s not the point.

The point is, when I called up they denied any knowledge of such a service, yet days earlier (DM was dated two days earlier) they had contacted me by post offering the service!

Worse still, I found an alternative USB Mobile Broadband deal at half price with a voucher code and I’ve got no relationship with Vodafone!

So, here are the potential circumstances:

1. Assuming the sales person was aware of the Mobile data package, he was clever enough to deny the existence of an inferior, smaller revenue generator, so suggested mobile broadband (three times the price). How dare he?!
2. The DM campaign was so well targeted that I received it (well done to those who predicted I might request it) but the sales person did not have knowledge of it, maybe because he didn’t read his bulletins or it wasn’t properly communicated to him. Internal marketing could do better!
3. The DM was not coordinated as part a multi-channel campaign. Dear oh dear!

Lessons learnt here:

1. Be honest in your multi-channel marketing drive, don’t go for the up-sell when a customer knows what they want.
2. Ensure that all internal staff that need to know such information is communicated with effectively. Lack of information means losing vital leads.
3. Co-ordinate all marketing campaigns across each channel in order to ensure maximum uptake from the target group, unless it is a specific requirement of the campaign that only a particular channel be used. Plus, any information taken from these channels can be used to get an overall picture of the market landscape, meaning better segmentation and targeting for future campaigns across multiple channels.

Sorry T-Mobile, I feel let down, so should you!

Does the BBC listen to its listeners?

As I was in work today and we had a half-empty office we decided to have Radio One on. I very rarely listen to the radio, mostly it’s only when I’m in the car and even then it’s in the background. However, when I do listen it’s generally Radio One, as I generally enjoy the DJs and the occasional song that I like, plus I absolutely hate adverts!

Today it was great to hear such a wide selection of music from classic artists, spanning decades. Hold on a minute, was I really listening to Radio One?!

It transpires that they were having a “listeners rule the airwaves” day. Obviously it’s the season of goodwill, the season of half-arsed work life too. Everyone takes their foot off the gas. The usual DJs are enjoying their Christmas break and the BBC has got to fill airtime somehow!

As it turns out I really enjoyed the songs they were playing, it really made a fantastic change to not hear the same set of songs played 3 times per day. Even the best of songs can turn into pet-hates just because it’s been played too many times on the radio. It can seriously turn you off songs!

Anyway, back to the point…

This got me thinking…
1. Do I listen to the wrong radio station, should I no longer listen to Radio One, as they clearly don’t play what I want to hear on a regular basis?
2. Does the fact “the listeners” chose songs that Radio One do not normally play mean that the Radio One Playlist is misguided?
3. If it is misguided, why do people still listen to Radio One? Why are they loyal?
4. Do Radio One take into account the listening choices of their audience (don’t forget they are a public broadcaster with a remit to serve the UK in the most fair and equal way) and would they take heed of this apparent swerve in song choice when setting future playlists?
5. Are other factors at play in people’s choice to listen to Radio One than just its playlist?

Now all things being equal there are many factors to be taken into account before you can make any sort of judgment or conclude either way in the debate of how the Radio One playlists are created, so I won’t start.

What this does raise is the validity of customer feedback & interaction and the value such organizations hold in it.

The ‘buzz’ tools of the moment are social networks and companies are desperate to get closer to their customers and prospects. The BBC is an established hub of information & interaction for a plethora of subjects, including music, as part of their public service.

Most progressive companies with proactive marketing departments would kill to have access to such an interactive customer base and the level of customer feedback available, so what do the BBC do with such valuable information? What would your company do with such information if you had access to it?

I guess the BBC are happy to follow their agreement with the government to provide “generic” public service broadcasting, so may not take the time and investment to proactively use this information. Let’s face it, they don’t have to “earn” their license fee, they just have to provide a service that ticks the right boxes.

So the next question is; what would they do with it if they lost their license fee and they had to become commercial? Would the BBC fall on its face due to its lack of marketing-led analysis, or would they become a media giant that could really take advantage of this new world of web 2.0 and beyond?

I anticipate that in the next few years we will find out. I’d love your views on this.