Viral

your social efforts aren't social, are they?

Spectacle Think about it.

  • Your widget - is it a conversation?  Or a tool?
  • Your blog - is it a two way conversation? or a publication?
  • Your "viral video" - is it part of something greater? Or a tactic?
  • Are your listening, monitoring or measuring the conversation? Or none of the above?
  • Your influencer relationships - are they relationships, or paid friendships?
  • Your "blogger outreach" - are you forming a relationship, inviting their participation as a two way street? Or are you sending a form letter pleading for free distribution of your campaign?
  • Are your campaigns executional? Or are they part of a broader relationship-building effort?


The key differentiators:

  • Are you making a statement or participating in a conversation? 
  • Are you:
    • a conversational brand,
    • a social object,
    • a broadcast message or
    • a social enabler?
      • Do your efforts reflect this reality?


The truest test of a brand's commitment to a relationship:
Does your customer support online, on the phone or via mail/email offer to same level of support as your social/twitter team, marketing agency, social agency or pr agency?

Key Takeaway: It's easy to care about a relationship in a silo.  It's much harder to commit to that relationship across the board.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Like this post? Share it on twitter! http://bit.ly/3wcL4f

Inspired by Joe Jaffe's post and the follow up discussion with Craig Daitch in the comments.


asking for IT vs. earning IT

  • Asking for it Is it ok for a blogger to ask for votes in a contest?
  • Is it ok for a company to ask/suggest that their employees embed a video, share a clip/widget/app, or digg a piece of "viral" content?
    • Must the employee disclose that they were prompted to share?  Must their friends or family do so?  How do you disclose a digg?  A tweet?
  • Is it ok for an ePR/Social Media "Guru" to use his or her network to promote their clients?
    • It is ok for clients to ask for/expect this?
  • Is it ok for a company to "follow" many people on Twitter without joining the conversation?
  • Is it ok for a Social Media Advocate to "become" your "friend" if they don't really care about friendship?
  • Is it ok to ask someone to recommend you on LinkedIn based on your blogging alone - without any insight into your productivity?

There is something fundamentally different between asking for it, and earning it.
    If you can't earn it on your own, when is it ok to ask? 
        How should one go about asking for it? 

photo credit here
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

EA : when getting it wrong = getting it right

Image representing Electronic Arts as depicted...

Image via CrunchBase

Anyone who has ever played a video game is familiar with the art of the glitch. It's as much a part of the gaming culture as mustachioed plumbers with an intense hatred of turtles.

Gamers practically expect to occasionally walk through walls, see through corners of buildings or walk on air.  These glitches aren't created on purpose, but with all the depth in today's games, it's understandable when something occasionally slip through the cracks.

Such was the case in Electronic Arts' Tiger Woods game.  A "glitch" known as "The Jesus Shot" was "discovered", allowing players to walk on water.  In a game that prided itself on realism, this glitch seemed both entertaining and a bit out of place.  A "fan" posted a video to this effect on You Tube, generating quite a bit of buzz.

So what does EA do about this buzz?  They used the buzz momentum for some great free publicity, creating the spot below (video below/after the jump).  Well Done.


Here's to hoping that this was an honest play, and not a seeded campaign.  For more conversation on the EA Jesus Shot campaign, check out the discussions linked here.  Really check them out.  I would estimate that nearly all the buzz was positive (with the only concern being the corporate usage of a religious icon in marketing).  Well Done!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

when insight becomes influence

Note: for more on this thread check out my article in tomorrow's issue of Personal Branding Mag.  Get a free sample here!

_____________________________

InfluenceInsightful people are not influentials.    Knowledgeable people are not influentials.    Smart people are not influentials.

Key Takeaway: Influence is not defined by one's credentials, but by the depth of the avenue of influence a given party places in this subject's hands.

In Plain English: the level of influence a "thought leader" has on his/her audience is not defined by his/her credentials or even the quality of his/her perspective, but by the level of credence and attention this "thought leader" has garnered against this audience.

Example: Joe Blogger may be brilliant.  But the level of influence he has on me is directly proportionate to the amount of attention and credence I put in his perspective. 

Food For Thought: With all the talk about the role of influentials in community, isn't it time we reconsidered the role of individual-defined influence filtering?  Just because I read TechCrunch or may be a member of the Mashable or NewTeeVee communities, does that inherently imply that my personal influence filter is similar or even related to others in the community?


innovation in an ROI driven world

Innovation_connection Over the past year I've encountered dozens of solutions, technologies, sales vendors, advertisers, marketers and futurists, all claiming to embody a single phrase - innovative. Yet to be totally honest, I haven't seen all that much that really blew my mind.  Is this because innovation has been stifled by realism, near term ROI concerns, a lack of vision, or is this a symptom of something greater?

Everyone claims to be pushing ahead, innovating, bringing forth new solutions that are "groundbreaking".

But most of what I've seen looks like everything I've been seeing for the past 5 years, just ported into a new channel.

As I see it, there are two types of innovation:
A) Incremental Innovation
B) Disruptive Innovation

Incremental Innovation is where much of the business world feels most comfortable.  This type of innovation is often referred to as, "the lowest hanging fruit".  This is innovation that takes a process or a concept that is already established and familiar, and builds on it.  It's not about reinventing the wheel, but adding a new feature to the wheel, making them somehow incrementally better.  Think of mobile OLA: it's nearly identical to regular OLA, just on a phone.  It's innovative,  but not yet a game changer.  Nearly all of the innovation I have seen over the past year falls into this bucket.

Disruptive Innovation is far more difficult that incremental innovation, yet the payout is far greater.  Disruptive Innovators are game changers.  They reinvent the wheel.  They are visionaries and big thinkers.  Disruptive Innovation is both risky and difficult, yet the end game payout is tremendous.  Think Facebook and social connections, the iPhone and user experience design and pervasive digital connectivity, Gigya and the widget, YouTube and UGC, Twitter and instant messaging, or BitTorrent and content distribution.  Without these innovators, 2008 would be a markedly different.

Key Takeaway: Most of us are putting the finishing touches on our '07 business and beginning to plan for '08.  If you don't have an innovation strategy or an innovation roadmap already in the books, it's time to do  so.   You won't be successful tomorrow if you don't have a plan for preparing for tomorrow, today. 

Dedicating all of your efforts to incremental innovation may satisfy the bottom line, but won't make you into a category leader.  This is true no matter regardless of the business you're in.  The time to begin planning for the future is now. 

If you've got any questions around innovation planning, PLEASE feel free to reach out to me via email or by commenting on this blog.  Karl Long just posted a great piece around the challenges and costs of getting innovation in-market.  If you'd like to learn more about innovation in business, check out any of the many fantastic blogs in reading list to the left of this post. 

Thanks for reading and as always, looking forward to your comments!


successful politics in the long tail

Disclaimer: this post is not about Ron Paul's policy, stance or politics.  It is about harnessing the dynamics of new media marketing to make a campaign into a movement.

Ron Paul gets marketing 2.0.  He's launching his campaign through social media, UGC, micro-payments, relationship marketing, and best of all, he's pulling it all together in a very grassroots kind of way.  Check out his recent work below/after the jump.



Key Takeaway: The end goal of social marketing shouldn't be viral success, rather we should be seeking to create a citizen fueled movement.

Cramer on Ron Paul's 2.0 Success


social marketing - as envisioned 30 years ago

Check out this quote:

"... talk about giving power to the people. Yonno, anybody knows that the people have the power.  All we have to do is awaken the power in the people.  The people are unaware. It's like their not educated to realize that they have power.  ... But we must try to make them aware of this."

This isn't from Seth Godin, this isn't Scoble, this isn't Arrington.  This was John Lennon, nearly 30 years ago.  This was a man who understood citizen activism and citizen marketing.  This was a visionary, a social genius.  While Lennon may have left this world 27 years ago today, his message is as true as ever.

Check it out the video below (feed readers, it's after the jump)I cannot recommend strongly enough that you watch this video in it's entirety.

Kudos to BL Ochman for sharing this fantastic piece.