emergencemarketing.com

(via perspective)

Nellie Lide over at New Persuasion has the following to say about advertisers on social networking sites (via social customer manifesto):

I think brands will have to go beyond a conversation – though that’s a good start – they have to be willing to develop and maintain a relationship/friendship with their customers over the long-term. And I think companies are looking at these sites all wrong. Advertisers, marketers, product-makers are trying to figure out how to exploit and use all the people on these sites – when they should be studying what these folks are doing and try to figure out how they can help these social sites be better for their users. Not more cluttered with their ads. If your product and brand don’t really fit in – stay out. Know your customer and respect your customer – that’s it.

Amen

At the risk of being repetitive – marketing is not about interrupting or intercepting people, it’s about assisting them!

[Tags: marketing advertising brands social networking ]

Here is another great example of what CGM can do to your brand. This thread is one where they are adding a web.20 twist to old brand logos (Via JupiterResearch)

Here are some good ones:

Pfizer beta – Yikes

[Tags: brands consumer generated content cgm web2.0]

The New York Times yesterday reported how Toyota is selling virtual Scions in an online game frequented by tweens and teens. Players can buy the car, modify it, pick up friends that don’t have the cool car yet, and join a club – which was visited over 33K times so far!

Talk about influencing brand image early!

[Tags: word of mouth wom viral marketing advertising branding]

I was lucky enough to host PR guru Larry Weber and interactive marketing pioneer Lois Kelly for a great conversation on the future of marketing. You can listen to the conversation by downloading the MP3 of the session here.

Some random snippets from the discussion include:

“…the first thing marketers should do is stop spending so much money on traditional media – it’s like throwing water into the boat, and not out of the boat…”

“…many marketing departments embrace the new marketing platforms but it’s amazing to see how they organize themselves like they did 25 years ago…”

“…I would organize marketing from the bottom up….innovation still never comes from the top down….I would look at things less in categories like PR, advertising, direct marketing….and start looking more in campaign orientation….”

“…the weaker the dialog the weaker the brand…the stronger the dialog the stronger the brand…”

“…Madison ave hijacked the browser in the last 10 years…we need to reclaim it…”

“…marketing should be at the center of everything…because the center of dialog will be at the center of a company’s success…”

“…the “idiot of the month” award goes to the Disney Corporation…” talking about their TIVO proof technology.

I will publish a more thoughtfully digested version soon, but wanted to give you some snippets to entice you to listen to this great conversation asap. And don’t forget that Lois and Larry will be having a live conversation at our marketing innovation conference next week - so make sure to join us there!

[Tags: skypecast larry weber lois kelly marketing corante cmarketing future new marketing]]

After a version of the Volkswagen Passat ad was released a few weeks ago on YouTube where one of the characters with ego problems says “because mine is only yeah big” instead of the official version where he says “because I am overcompensating for my shortcomings,” here comes another example of a vendor/ad agency planting a seemingly unapproved ad version online. This time the Durango ad, banned for TV, has two guys in a bathroom arguing about “Mine’s bigger, no, mine is” (and 7 inches makes a difference – via Adrants).

While these are fun to watch, it can be dangerous for companies to release what could be construed as consumer generated ads. Although there is of course a major difference between the two, take the Sony PSP graffiti as an example of one such campaign that backfired.

[Tags: word of mouth wom viral marketing online marketing cgm]

The Sunday New York Times had a great story on how Lenovo has gotten under fire by a bunch of xenophobes including Lou Dobbs, a couple of people from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, an advisory body to Congress, and other politicians.

The gist of the story is that Lou Dobbs and a few others, including some members of congress, are “suggesting” – based on mostly unfounded insinuations and allegations – that Lenovo computers currently being sold to the State Department as part of a competitive contract won by Lenovo “could provide shadowy spooks in the Chinese government with an ideal means of conducting espionage.”

Being framed in the context of “buy American” and also in the context of “national security,” the story inevitably took on a life of its own. It does not matter that it is virtually impossible to “buy American” when it comes to PCs, as most PCs are manufactured and assembled, at least in part, overseas. Nor does it matter that it is extremely unlikely that the Chinese could put “spook” software in the Lenovo PCs as they are assembled in North Carolina and as the PCs have to pass the State Department’s two computer security groups, which oversee the administration of their own test suites and install firewalls and other security software. It also does not matter that the company has historically been a meritocracy – now run by Americans. The fact that the story is framed in the context of cultural anxieties will ensure its rapid spread.

Regardless of whether you believe that xenophobia like this is bad or really bad for the economy as a whole (there are some good lessons to be learned from some European economies on that front), it goes without question that it is damaging the Lenovo brand. And while articles like the one in the New York Times, exposing the fact that there is no substance to the points being raised, and undermining the legitimacy of the claims being made, are necessary – from a brand perspective they only add fuel to the fire. In the long run they could potentially cause more harm than good to the Lenovo brand.

So what is a company to do when faced with rumors that either appeal to fundamental cultural anxieties or that are framed in popular worldviews? Rebutting while staying on the same playing field is a losing proposition – a fact proven over and over in the world of politics. Could there be an opportunity to reframe the debate or start a new one on a playing field that is more advantageous to the company? Or should they just paint themselves in green and lay on the grass ’till it all blows over?

Other blog post on the subject:
Brad Feld at Feld Thoughts – “Maybe Penn and Teller should do an episode on Bullshit! on Dobbs and the current “security issues” ”

[Technorati Tags: Lenovo xenophobia crisis management lou dobbs public relations PR]

Almost 5 years ago – I decided to buy a Mercedes E320 for my wife’s birthday. The brand attributes that were appealing to us at the time were:

• safety – important as she was driving around our 6 year old son in New England weather
• reliability – we trusted that the German engineering would not cost us a fortune in service charges
• a relationship – we were looking for a relationship with the car manufacturer instead of a dealership . We were told that we were buying a Mercedes, and that all promises would be honored by any dealer – no matter which one
• luxury – that is what the brand stands for after all
• status – in hindsight there was unfortunately some of that

It did not take long for us to realize that Mercedes was not delivering against most of its implied brand promises.

I bought the car from Herb Chambers’ Flagship Motorcars, as they were the only one willing to provide me with a quote via the Internet at the time. Soon after we bought it, various parts of the car started to break down and the engine started to lose oil. And soon after that we found ourselves looking for an alternative dealership as we were very dissatisfied with this dealer’s service level. One dealership, which was actually closer to us, did not have Saturday servicing. Nor were they willing to provide a loaner car during major services to customers who did not buy the car directly from them. So much for the promises across dealerships.

We ended up with Foreign Motor West, a 45 minute drive from our house, and over the years spent thousands of dollars with them on all kind of problems, which ranged from small things, like various indicators and buttons failing, to bigger issues such as a leak in the air conditioning system in year three which unfortunately could never be located and resulted in repeated air conditioning failures, to brake problems, to the ongoing oil loss problems and more expensive repairs for things I don’t even understand – nor care to understand. What I do know – it is a long, too long list.

Less than a month ago we had the car serviced again – this time it needed a new air flow meter and a few other things – costing another $1,100. Three weeks later , while driving to our son’s birthday party, my wife’s car blew up on the highway less than 3 miles after leaving the house. To our surprise, Mercedes Roadside assistance did not cover the tow – which ended up costing $5/mile. We had it towed, at our expense, to the nearest dealership.

But the biggest surprise came a few days later when they called us from the dealership with the estimate for repairs. Turns out something had blown a hole the size of a quarter in the side of the engine. Which meant we needed a new engine. The cost: $14K!

I am not a car expert, but I feel confident saying that a 5 year old Mercedes with 100K miles (mostly highway miles), should not blow a hole in the engine. The dealership where we had the car towed to told us there was nothing they could do other than putting a new engine in. When we contacted our dealership they towed the car back to their garage for inspection, only to get back to us a week later and tell us that the engine had overheated because there was no antifreeze in the car. A rather important point here: the other dealer had told us that the reason there was neither antifreeze nor oil in the car was because of the aforementioned quarter-sized hole in the engine.

Now I really felt taken for a ride (and not the smooth, luxurious one Mercedes promised us)… Mercedes was turning what should have been their problem into a chicken or egg problem – did the hole come first or did the antifreeze disappear first? And they were blaming me for not having antifreeze! Where, oh where, did the antifreeze go in the three weeks since they ran all their sophisticated electronic equipment on the car? Maybe most Mercedes customers are stupid (including me for being motivated by emotions instead of economics), but to me (and the other dealer) it seems obvious that the antifreeze leaked out after something blew a hole in the engine!

Still believing that this was just a bad movie and that nobody at Mercedes corporate would want anybody to perceive their brand this way, I wrote to Mercedes customer service asking for their help and also emailed a few PR folks as well as their newly minted VP of Marketing – Mark McNabb – asking for help. I never heard back from the office of the Vice President, but someone from their PR got back to me and introduced me to Paul Juron, the GM for the Customer Assistance Center. I pinged him twice but never got any response. Finally I did get a response from someone in his department – simply stating “Thank you for your recent e-mails to Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. After review, I have been asked to respond on our organizations behalf. Arrangements have been made for your concerns to be reviewed on a local level; you may expect further contact shortly, if not already.” Well, as it turns out, the local decision stayed the same…it was deemed to be our fault/problem that something got loose in the engine and blew that hole in the engine block.

My final analysis? No wonder Mercedes has tumbled to 21st in the most recent JD Power Satisfaction Survey. It is mind boggling (instructive too) to witness and experience how such a prestigious brand has fallen so far so fast. And while I’ve learned something, believe me that it’s been no fun being on the receiving end of this knowledge.

Oh one more thing: Mr McNabb, if you happen to stumble upon this post, I would like to extend you a complimentary invitation to our upcoming Innovative Marketing Conference’s CMO Summit – a $1,500 value. Not only would it be fun to have you there to discuss Mercedes as a case study, but you might actually walk away from the event with some valuable lessons on how to do the right thing for your customers.

Check here for the rest of the story, and here for another follow up.

Other posts linking here:
Pito’s Blog
The brandbuilder blog

PS – if you like this story – please digg it!

[Technorati Tags: Mercedes Mercedes customer satisfaction mercedes benz e class Foreign Motor West Flagship Motorcars customer service]

Research, such as the research reported by Everett Rogers in Diffusion of Innovation, has shown that advertising works best on innovators and early adopters. It does not work as well on the early majority buyers. For majority buyers, interpersonal communications (word of mouth) from peers is the preferred mode of getting information. In fact, the same research shows that for all buyers as a whole, interpersonal communication has an effect on buying behavior that is over tenfold that of mass communication.

Furthermore, advertising works best in the awareness stage of the buying cycle. That is, if the buyer has the right predisposition to be informed by the ads. That occurs when the buyer has a need, or when some other change agent has approached the buyer about the possibilities first (i.e., expert in the press, colleague, etc.). If neither of those happen, then the buyer will not even hear or see the advertising – it will just be tuned out. In the preference stage, when the buyer starts forming an opinion about the product, most information comes from interpersonal communication. In the preference-forming stage, interpersonal communication may sometimes be substituted by expert commentaries and reviews.

Based on this, and stating the obvious, start ups who are peddling new product categories to innovators and early adopters should not waste their time and energy on brand advertising. Instead they should focus their efforts on lead generation and on influencing the influencers so that the right interpersonal conversations can get started.

[Technorati Tags: word of mouth marketing WOM brand advertising advertising]

Bentley College marketing honors looks like an interesting college project – with the following mission:

“The students in the honors seminar in marketing at Bentley College have created a multiple author blog in order to complete a class assignment as well as to introduce other marketing students to cutting-edge ideas and principles by monitoring and commenting on some of the best marketing blogs in the blogosphere.

So, each student will monitor a particular blog and post a commentary on a particular blog posting every week. A few of the Corante Marketing Hub contributors got adopted as blogs to follow, and there are already interesting commentaries on posts from those blogs – including the brandbuilder, marketing to women, diva marketing, and brand autopsy.

When Melissa reviewed a post on Word of Mouth Marketing (WOM)from this blog she raised some interesting questions. Why is that when people disclose that they work for a company for which they are recommending products, the rate at which the message gets passed along is 70% higher than when the relationship is not disclosed? This is a very counter-intuitive result after all. She also says: “Francois does not offer any insight into the real significance of this finding. Rather, it just states the results of the study. It would have been helpful to see what he saw as implications from this study.” – good point!

Walter Carl, the author of the original research paper, offers some possible explanations for the results of the survey. One is that the average length of time that the agent and their conversation partner knew one another in the study was 6 years. That is a long enough period to build a lot of trust so that the conversation partner feels that the agent has his or her best interest at heart – no matter what the commercial relationship is between the agent and the company for which products are being recommended. His second reason is that credibility is either unaffected or increased by the disclosure.

While these are plausible explanations for why a commercial message would get passed along after disclosure, they are not really reasons for why the pass-along rate would increase with disclosure. If the average length of time that people knew one another was indeed six years, then perhaps one reason might be the motivation of the conversation partner to help the agent out. Just like with some of the better referral incentive programs, which work on the premise that is better to give an incentive to the person who is being referred, rather than the person who is making the referral – it plays off a basic human need to “give.” Another possible explanation, which Melissa alludes to in her post as well, is that the conversation partner sees the fact the the agent is willing to associate with the product/company as an extra endorsement for that product. If the agent is willing to get into a commercial relationship with the company that makes the product that is being endorsed, and is willing to disclose that relationship, that means that the agent must feel really good about himself or herself in the presence of that brand – and that is maybe what adds to the contagiousness.

While I am not so sure that there any major implications coming out of this study, I am concerned that marketers will screw up WOM marketing by trying to optimize it and by looking for measurable ROI’s. It is and will remain hard to measure, and just like physicist learned a long time ago – you can dramatically disrupt the environment by measuring it.

[Technorati Tags: word of mouth wom]