Blog Consulting, LLC.

Building Assets - vs - Chasing Transactions

Most important social media strategy:  build an asset instead of a machine that you hope will bring transactions. 

If you build the asset, the transactions will follow.

The ongoing growth of life-long patron relationships are incredibly valuable.

What if you could build a social media channel that had ten's of thousands of daily visitors, who are raving fans of your enterprise, would that be valuable?

Ummm...yeah!

Seth Godin agrees.

Social Media: Ready, Fire, Aim?

When my wife and I were consulting in the financial services industry, we were continually asked, "How on earth have you accomplished what you have?"

As we would begin our investigation, we would quite often occasion the wild gunslinger who would run to battle firing wildly, making lots of noise, and unfortunately, many times run back wounded, or perhaps even dead (the business that is).

Now, make no mistake, there is a place for a gunslinger.  However, the best gunslingers do not simply grab a gun and run off shooting.  Sure, you are likely to hit something.  Sure, you will likely get a lot of attention. 

But hear this, it is not sustainable!  You will either be mortally wounded, or perhaps even dead.

This is also true of an organization's social media strategy.  

Here are 11 critical questions to ask, and answer, before you begin a social media channel:

• Why are we doing this?
• Who do we hope to communicate with?
• How are we going to communicate? (video, audio, text, all of the above?)
• How often are we going to communicate?
• What are we going to communicate?
• Might we expand our influence through a social media channel?  How?  Who would we want to talk to?
• Might we better communicate, and deepen the relationship with our current patrons?  What would this look like?
• Might we better help our patrons, and potential patrons to understand the heart of our organization?
• Might this medium, over time, reduce our cost of communication?  Can we reduce our exposure to expensive print costs?
• What does success look like?
• What would a return on investment (ROI) look like?

Most businesses that we consulted with essentially ran on the "idea of the month".  There were no foundational principles to what they were doing, they had no specific, measurable objectives, they were often victims of burnout, and found themselves on the battle field, smoke rising from the barrels of their guns, and completely lost, frustrated, and defeated.

Look, when you enter the world of social media, you are going to make a first impression.  First impressions are very quickly made, and very, very difficult to change.

Therefore, I say, ready, carefully aim, and then...fire to beat the band!

PS - the "ready, aim" part of this equation might take an afternoon.  Do it, measure, and constantly make adjustments as you go along.

REI - A Social Media Case Study

Blog Consulting, LLC - as is becoming more, and more normal, I was busy working at my desk when up pops a notification that REI had just sent me an e-mail.

Being a member, and a fan of REI, I was curious to see what they might trying to communicate to me.

Here is a copy of the e-mail that they sent me, which, as you might expect, was full of ideas for fall outdoor gear.

The pleasant surprise, if you look down to the very bottom of the e-mail, was an invitation, through the use of social media icons, to their social media sites.

Here you will find their Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and flickr outposts.

If you poke around in these outposts, you will find that they have collected quit an active, and passionate audience.

The social media outpost that most captured my attention, and therefore about 20 minutes of my time, was their YouTube site.

REI is famous for teaching its patrons how to safely enjoy the outdoors, and how to properly use the right equipment to aid in that enjoyment.

To that end, they have uploaded over 105 videos to bring that information right to your home computer.  What a marvelous use of technology.  It makes me appreciate them more, and it also makes me more inclined to tell others about them, which I am doing right now.

Clearly they have determined that instructional video is a powerful, and valuable tool for them.

Marketing take-away:  might your organization bring great value to your patrons through short, instructional videos?  Take a peek through REI's social media sights, and glean what you might learn from them. 

Here is a sample video, from REI, on Geocaching:

Seth Godin: Own the platform -vs- Renting the eyeballs

One of the paradigm shifts that must occur, in the minds of any organization, is that of building your own media channel.  Organizational communication is changing rapidly, and those who don't become early adapters are going to regret it, as they attempt to recover their audience for those who do adapt early.

In this visionary article, Seth Godin points his attention to those who might engage in "traditional advertising":

This might be the most subtle yet important shift that marketers face as they deal with the reality of new media. Marketers aren't renters, now they own.

For generations, marketers were trained to buy (actually rent) eyeballs.

A media company assembled a large amount of attention. A TV network or a magazine or even a billboard company found a place you can put an ad, and they sold you a shot at reaching their audience.

You, the marketer, don't care about the long-term value of this audience. It's like a rental car. You want it to be clean and shiny when you get it, you want to avoid getting in trouble when you return it, but hey, it's a rental.

And so when we buy ads, we ask, "how big an audience" and then we design an ad with our brand in mind, not with the well-being of the media company or its audience in mind. And if we get a .1% or even a 1% response rate, we celebrate.

A trade show booth is an example of eyeball thinking. The trade show organizer assembles attendees and your job at the booth is to grab as many as you can.

Old media was not the same as old branding. Media companies built audiences and then brands rented those audiences.

Suddenly the new media comes along and the rules are different. You're not renting an audience, you're building one. You're not exhibiting at a trade show, you're starting your own trade show.

If you still ask, "how much traffic is there," or "what's the CPM?" you're not getting it. Are you buying momentary attention or are you investing in a long term asset?

Now, when you buy something (that thing you used to call 'media'), you're not paying for eyeballs, you're paying for a platform. A platform you can use to build your own audience, one that you can nurture, educate and ultimately convert. You'll take care of this audience differently, measure them differently and have a different sales cycle. This isn't natural, but it works.

Two steps: buy a platform and then fill it with people. Some examples:

Authors have traditionally relied on publishers to bring them readers. The author gives up the majority of the income and the publisher brings them the readers. But then you see someone like Frank at Post Secret who builds his own audience for his (sometimes nsfw) content. He owns a platform, it's not something he rents. Now, using a publisher is a choice, not a necessity. Just about every successful author going forward (except for the lucky exceptions like Dan Brown) will own her own media channel. Not just authors, of course...

Consider the local real estate agent. She can spend to run ads every week in the local paper, or she can use the same money to start a legitimate media channel, a digital magazine, say, one that cheers on the school and gives the local paper a run for its money. And oh yes, the only houses listed for sale are hers. It might take a lot of work and even some money. But what does she get? A platform forever.

Traditionally, a clothing brand has to give up income and control to a retailer, since the retailer has the eyeballs. The web allows a brand like Little Miss Matched to build their own platform, their own audience and thus bypass all those gatekeepers. They invested in a product that told a story instead of investing in giving Walmart a cut. Boring products can't do this.

Or consider the local chiropractor. He can spend money on a yellow pages ad or he can invest in a platform, creating a local running club and doing coaching for its members.

(Compare these examples with McDonald's, a company that continues to rent eyeballs for a high price and has no real platform to speak of.)

Or consider the acquisition of Omniture by Adobe. What did Adobe pay for? I'd argue it was direct access to the right people at the leading advertisers and websites around the world. Technology isn't so hard to copy. Permission to connect is almost impossible to achieve.

Compared to the cost of renting eyeballs, buying a platform is cheap. Filling it with people eager to hear from you... that's the expensive part. But if you don't invest in the platform, you'll be at a disadvantage, now and forever. The smart way to build a brand today is to invest in the elements of the platform... the product, the technology, the websites (plural) and the systems you need to make it easy for people to show up at your very own trade show. And then embrace these people and shoot for 90% conversion, not .5%.

Like most good investments, it's expensive and worth more than it costs.

This might be the most subtle yet important shift that marketers face as they deal with the reality of new media. Marketers aren't renters, now they own.

For generations, marketers were trained to buy (actually rent) eyeballs.

A media company assembled a large amount of attention. A TV network or a magazine or even a billboard company found a place you can put an ad, and they sold you a shot at reaching their audience.

You, the marketer, don't care about the long-term value of this audience. It's like a rental car. You want it to be clean and shiny when you get it, you want to avoid getting in trouble when you return it, but hey, it's a rental.

And so when we buy ads, we ask, "how big an audience" and then we design an ad with our brand in mind, not with the well-being of the media company or its audience in mind. And if we get a .1% or even a 1% response rate, we celebrate.

A trade show booth is an example of eyeball thinking. The trade show organizer assembles attendees and your job at the booth is to grab as many as you can.

Old media was not the same as old branding. Media companies built audiences and then brands rented those audiences.

Suddenly the new media comes along and the rules are different. You're not renting an audience, you're building one. You're not exhibiting at a trade show, you're starting your own trade show.

If you still ask, "how much traffic is there," or "what's the CPM?" you're not getting it. Are you buying momentary attention or are you investing in a long term asset?

Now, when you buy something (that thing you used to call 'media'), you're not paying for eyeballs, you're paying for a platform. A platform you can use to build your own audience, one that you can nurture, educate and ultimately convert. You'll take care of this audience differently, measure them differently and have a different sales cycle. This isn't natural, but it works.

Two steps: buy a platform and then fill it with people. Some examples:

Authors have traditionally relied on publishers to bring them readers. The author gives up the majority of the income and the publisher brings them the readers. But then you see someone like Frank at Post Secret who builds his own audience for his (sometimes nsfw) content. He owns a platform, it's not something he rents. Now, using a publisher is a choice, not a necessity. Just about every successful author going forward (except for the lucky exceptions like Dan Brown) will own her own media channel. Not just authors, of course...

Consider the local real estate agent. She can spend to run ads every week in the local paper, or she can use the same money to start a legitimate media channel, a digital magazine, say, one that cheers on the school and gives the local paper a run for its money. And oh yes, the only houses listed for sale are hers. It might take a lot of work and even some money. But what does she get? A platform forever.

Traditionally, a clothing brand has to give up income and control to a retailer, since the retailer has the eyeballs. The web allows a brand like Little Miss Matched to build their own platform, their own audience and thus bypass all those gatekeepers. They invested in a product that told a story instead of investing in giving Walmart a cut. Boring products can't do this.

Or consider the local chiropractor. He can spend money on a yellow pages ad or he can invest in a platform, creating a local running club and doing coaching for its members.

(Compare these examples with McDonald's, a company that continues to rent eyeballs for a high price and has no real platform to speak of.)

Or consider the acquisition of Omniture by Adobe. What did Adobe pay for? I'd argue it was direct access to the right people at the leading advertisers and websites around the world. Technology isn't so hard to copy. Permission to connect is almost impossible to achieve.

Compared to the cost of renting eyeballs, buying a platform is cheap. Filling it with people eager to hear from you... that's the expensive part. But if you don't invest in the platform, you'll be at a disadvantage, now and forever. The smart way to build a brand today is to invest in the elements of the platform... the product, the technology, the websites (plural) and the systems you need to make it easy for people to show up at your very own trade show. And then embrace these people and shoot for 90% conversion, not .5%.

Like most good investments, it's expensive and worth more than it costs.

This might be the most subtle yet important shift that marketers face as they deal with the reality of new media. Marketers aren't renters, now they own.

For generations, marketers were trained to buy (actually rent) eyeballs.

A media company assembled a large amount of attention. A TV network or a magazine or even a billboard company found a place you can put an ad, and they sold you a shot at reaching their audience.

You, the marketer, don't care about the long-term value of this audience. It's like a rental car. You want it to be clean and shiny when you get it, you want to avoid getting in trouble when you return it, but hey, it's a rental.

And so when we buy ads, we ask, "how big an audience" and then we design an ad with our brand in mind, not with the well-being of the media company or its audience in mind. And if we get a .1% or even a 1% response rate, we celebrate.

A trade show booth is an example of eyeball thinking. The trade show organizer assembles attendees and your job at the booth is to grab as many as you can.

Old media was not the same as old branding. Media companies built audiences and then brands rented those audiences.

Suddenly the new media comes along and the rules are different. You're not renting an audience, you're building one. You're not exhibiting at a trade show, you're starting your own trade show.

If you still ask, "how much traffic is there," or "what's the CPM?" you're not getting it. Are you buying momentary attention or are you investing in a long term asset?

Now, when you buy something (that thing you used to call 'media'), you're not paying for eyeballs, you're paying for a platform. A platform you can use to build your own audience, one that you can nurture, educate and ultimately convert. You'll take care of this audience differently, measure them differently and have a different sales cycle. This isn't natural, but it works.

Two steps: buy a platform and then fill it with people. Some examples:

Authors have traditionally relied on publishers to bring them readers. The author gives up the majority of the income and the publisher brings them the readers. But then you see someone like Frank at Post Secret who builds his own audience for his (sometimes nsfw) content. He owns a platform, it's not something he rents. Now, using a publisher is a choice, not a necessity. Just about every successful author going forward (except for the lucky exceptions like Dan Brown) will own her own media channel. Not just authors, of course...

Consider the local real estate agent. She can spend to run ads every week in the local paper, or she can use the same money to start a legitimate media channel, a digital magazine, say, one that cheers on the school and gives the local paper a run for its money. And oh yes, the only houses listed for sale are hers. It might take a lot of work and even some money. But what does she get? A platform forever.

Traditionally, a clothing brand has to give up income and control to a retailer, since the retailer has the eyeballs. The web allows a brand like Little Miss Matched to build their own platform, their own audience and thus bypass all those gatekeepers. They invested in a product that told a story instead of investing in giving Walmart a cut. Boring products can't do this.

Or consider the local chiropractor. He can spend money on a yellow pages ad or he can invest in a platform, creating a local running club and doing coaching for its members.

(Compare these examples with McDonald's, a company that continues to rent eyeballs for a high price and has no real platform to speak of.)

Or consider the acquisition of Omniture by Adobe. What did Adobe pay for? I'd argue it was direct access to the right people at the leading advertisers and websites around the world. Technology isn't so hard to copy. Permission to connect is almost impossible to achieve.

Compared to the cost of renting eyeballs, buying a platform is cheap. Filling it with people eager to hear from you... that's the expensive part. But if you don't invest in the platform, you'll be at a disadvantage, now and forever. The smart way to build a brand today is to invest in the elements of the platform... the product, the technology, the websites (plural) and the systems you need to make it easy for people to show up at your very own trade show. And then embrace these people and shoot for 90% conversion, not .5%.

Like most good investments, it's expensive and worth more than it costs.

Video: GM President Fritz Henderson discusses Social Media with David Meerman Scott

An very interesting video interview, by David Meerman Scott, with Fritz Henderson, President of General Motors, on the subject of Social Media.

Note:  if you don't see the video, click here.

Did You Know 4.0

Global Survey reports that many companies are increasing their budgets for Web 2.0 (Social Media)

In a recent podcast interview, Michael Chui, consultant with McKinsey & Company, shares the findings of his employers most recent annual report on Web 2.0 (Social Media) usage in companies all over the world:  How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0:  McKinsey Global Survey Results.

A couple things caught my attention:

• In spite of the economy, companies are continuing to make investments in Web 2.0.  80% have not reduced their spending, in fact 50%, of the 80% are increasing their budgets in this regard.
• Why are they doing this?  It is relatively inexpensive, but more importantly, 2/3rds of the respondents are seeing a return on their investment.

Here is a short 7 minute interview with Michael Chui, summarizing the report of 2,000 world-wide executives: 

We are here to help you plan, and implement your social media strategy. Contact us for a free, no obligation phone consult.

Do you think Social Media is a Fad?

Homework:  watch this video, and re-think your entire communication strategy.  Seriously! 

We are here to consult with you during the transition. 



[HT - Austin Hamilton]

I don't like Newsweek's RSS Feed. What do you think?

Blog Consulting, LLC - this post is going to be a bit of a rant.

I have been subscribed to Newsweek's RSS Feed for a few weeks, and I just unsubscribed.

Why?

Well, look at one of today's feeds.  How are they delivering raving fan value to me as a potential subscriber?

They give me a title, once sentence, and force me to come to their blog if I want to learn more.  I have learned to enjoy blogs/feeds that allow me to read the whole article in my feed reader.  It is totally impossible to visit all the blogs in my reader.

Newsweek should consider my Google reader as they would a print copy of their magazine.  They don't expect me to come to their home office to read their magazine, why then, do they expect me to come to their blog to read their articles?

Answer?  Self Benefit.  But...who is ultimately suppose to be getting the value here?  Newsweek, or me?

Then to top it off, they stuff these Google ads in my face.

Very annoying, and disappointing Newsweek!  Your print model does not work in the Internet. 

Please, do not pass go, and please re-think how you are treating your patrons.

Video Post: How would you communicate your message if you owned a television station?

Blog Consulting, LLC. - is this week's video post, I encourage you to consider how you would communicate if you owned a television station.  Hint:  with your own social media channel, you can have your own television station.

If you enjoyed this video, please consider using the "share this" tool below, and forward this video to your personal network.  Thanks!