Unintentional Advertising

Let’s assume that one of the UK’s largest broadcast networks like iTV decided to stop all advertising efforts for Britain’s Got Talent. Would they cross their fingers and hope people talked about the shows around the water cooler at work? Would they hope that enough people added the show to their DVR list while it was being promoted heavily? Or maybe, they would wish for a 47 year old woman who would sing a song that was heard by millions?

Reports from Mashable show that Susan Boyle’s video is on track to reach 100 million views (not counting replays on talk/new shows, news shows, etc). What’s the implication here? Britain’s Got Talent received the equivalent of a super bowl sized audience because they were lucky enough to host a venue with the potential for amazing content. The show didn’t even have to create it. It simply established and promoted the venue. The formula we witnessed in this situation is:

BRAND X (TV Show) +

CATALYST Y (Susan Boyle) =

MASSIVE PROMOTION FOR BRAND X

The above formula isn’t a complex one, but the trouble lies in finding the perfect variables. iTV is a media company. For them to strike gold on a piece of content isn’t that unlikely. After all, they are in the business of distributing media so theSusan Boyle unintentional advertising campaign was bound to eventually happen in one form or another. Where this formula proves to be the biggest challenge is when embraced by companies that don’t have much to do with content creation. Packaged goods, automotives, etc, earn their profits from selling products not intangibles like entertainment or information. This doesn’t mean that these types of brands are excluded from trying to capitalize on unintentional advertising, it just means that they are going to have to roll the dice in terms of content creation (more often and with less of an agenda) in order to potentially reap the benefits of a viral piece of content.

The Chicken or the Egg of New & Old Media

The Susan Boyle saga brings up an interesting circular question. Would anyone have noticed Susan Boyle if the show hadn’t advertised itself via paid media previously and built up its viewership? (Assume this was the first season) Conversely, could Britain’s Got Talent have become the success it is today, if it solely relied on the likes of Susan bringing in such a storm of attention?

For most brands, the latter choice in the above question is not going to be an option. People that know companies for selling widgets are not going to look to that company to provide content; especially the kind of content that is going to reach millions of people. This means that those widget-selling brands need to examine a few items:

1. Can any marketing goals be achieved through content marketing in an ideal situation?
2. If so, can subject matter relate to the target audience of your product/brand?
3. Are you prepared to invest the time/resources/funds/risk needed to create content without a firm date of ROI?

If any of the answers are no, then this form of marketing might not make sense (a likely outcome for many). The mass majority of media that goes viral was not intended to be marketing. That being said, achieving it is not impossible either. It just comes down to being comfortable with the idea that it rarely can be intentional.

Driving sales or Driving Attention?

If the above theory is true, then the overarching plan for a marketer should be clear. Use your marketing dollars to gain attention to your platform. Once you get that window of attention. Create amazing content so that the attention has a longer shelf life. The specifics of what that content should be is not something this post means to address. Rather, it seeks to remind decision makers of the overarching approach to creating content.

The last couple of years have shown us plenty of examples of advertisers trying to jump on the bandwagon of viral content. Using video as a example, Honeyshed tried to drive sales through a kitschy version of catalog shopping in another case Doritos sought to build buzz by crowdsourcing its super bowl creative. The issue with both of these and others like it? The goal was to drive sales, not drive attention. If a company wants to drive sales, there are much more effective means for doing so. Direct, CRM, ad networks, etc. If a brand wants to bring more attention to itself, then it should create content that is interesting regardless of its influence on consumer decision.

There’s no such thing as a free “Launch”

If after all these cautionary points, a company still wants to pursue content marketing, the last thing to remember is that creating/aggregating content is NOT a free alternative to a marketing budget. Sure, it’s technically possible to shoot a low budget video that has the potential to go viral, but generally that cannot happen unless that video is launched on a platform that already has some attention around it. As discussed earlier, widget companies don’t own these kinds of platforms, so in order to establish them you need to leverage your marketing budget to create that wealth of attention. Take advantage of that paid-for attention to produce content or unique aggregation of other’s great content. If you are lucky (and viral marketing is very much a game of luck) then perhaps one of those pieces of work sent forth will be your very own version of Susan Boyle.

Promote Yourself. Promote Others

Companies are much like people. They like to talk about themselves. Also like people, they sometimes forget to praise the brilliance of others. There are two observations that the Critical Mass twitter profile receives quite a bit: 1) A lot of great links are shared. 2) Most of those links are to other people's work. Those two comments prompted a thought which resulted in a sizeable response:

This concept doesn’t just apply to Twitter, it easily translates to various content-producing social networks, but for the sake of this short case study, let’s keep it to just one.

Participation: Twitter requires a certain frequency of communication to be considered an “active member.” Even if it’s 4-5 a day, you’re hitting enough people to make your presence known. A single entity (outside of media outlets) generally doesn’t produce enough content everyday in order to have 4-5 things worth mentioning to promote itself. The subsequent reality? If you want to tweet, you need to tweet something created by someone else.

Reciprocation: People who share content with others, generally want those others to also share that content with another set of people. It can come in the form of a “retweet” or a link to a blog post. Whatever the method, when we distribute information, we want that information to snowball among the rest of a given audience. In order for that to take place you need a community of people who are willing to share your content. That community of sharers grows exponentially if you are also actively sharing their content in reciprocation. If you’re not, then you need to be an absolute leader in your field to blindly receive praise and pass-along.

Modesty: Stemming from the above, even if you ARE the absolute leader in your field, by not sharing the thoughts of others you are indirectly making the implication that your thoughts/products/services are better than everyone else’s. That could very well be true, but arrogance can cost you the attention of those who genuinely would want to hear what you have to say. Share information. It sends the message that you value other’s time as much as they should value yours.

Originality: After you've established yourself as an entity that contributes to the community you're having a conversation in, remember to balance goodwill will originality. Sharing other's links too much can be detrimental to a twitter brand as well since it may lead some to think you lack originality. Make sure that your reciprocation always has a nice share of your own original thoughts.

Thanks to @jasondrohn @Stuartcfoster @jamiecalder @KWhite16131 @louiebaur @sarahkatharine@PaigeCalvert @mthinker @mattDavidson @NicoledeB @TimMoore for passing along this thought.

Snoozebucks

It all started with a tweet:

LenKendall: I knew it!!! Napping is better than coffee. Take that Starbucks. I'm going to open a Snoozebucks. http://twurl.nl/qf55dd

And with a little positive feedback I was inspired to write a new blog post:

@dylanorion: you do that, I'll be your most loyal customer. Hell, I'll never leave!

@AlexaFletcher: Sign me up...Haa..no really.

@juliepower: i'll take a super comfy, mega soft, hold the kids, snooze pod

@lana_berry: i would go...

@sevynn7s: so I've been looking for a partner at the shop it could easily be a coffee/nap shop, we've got plenty of couches.

@dan360man: you should talk to @cmegroup, too, about trading sleep futures

Although this blog is generally a forum for improving products, experiences, and brands, today I wanted to offer a fairly far-out idea that is unlikely to be taken seriously, but one that in my mind is a great concept for another company to capitalize on if Starbucks doesn’t.

It’s not a secret that Starbucks has been in a slump for the past year. Through September 2008 profit has dipped 97% and that number is expected to go higher. So how can this successful change revolutionize their business model and turn the earnings arrow in the upward direction?

Although Starbucks has started to venture into other in-store products such as snacks, music, gum, etc the focus of their business has always been selling a product that keeps people awake. While that spectrum of the market is a very profitable one, it’s completely neglecting the opposite side: people who are looking to get some sleep.

This isn’t a new idea by any means. It’s already happening on a micro luxurious level, especially overseas, but no one has taken this concept to a broader scale and branded the service of “offering naps” on a national level. Starbucks is already a place people go to relax and spend time (not including the heavy commuter shops). By simply renovating their larger shops to accommodate sleep pods they will be introducing a product on a national level which essentially doesn’t exist, but could very much be sought after.

The article which inspired this idea was one that stated that people, “who took a 2-hour afternoon nap did significantly better at repeating verbal, perception, and motor-skill tests from that morning than those given caffeine or a placebo.” Now obviously Starbucks wouldn’t want to tout the negative portion of the statistics that relate to caffeine consumption however they COULD create the feeling of necessity of sleeping. And in doing so would establish themselves as the go-to brand for catching some quick z’s.

So where would a test pilot of this program make sense? Easy. College campuses located in Urban areas. College students are prime candidates for testing this business model out as they have the luxury of longer blocks of time during the day. Back in my own college days I recall countless students sprawled out on couches in our student union, in the cafeteria, and yes even in Starbucks. They didn’t want to go back to their apartments so they used public facilities to sleep. The market is there, they just aren’t being served. There are college students who won't mind shelling out a few bucks to sleep on a bed instead of a park bench. I know, because I was once one of them.

If I had the money to invest, I would build this business out in a heartbeat. But I don’t...so Starbucks enjoy the free idea and hopefully I’ll be your first patron at Snoozebucks.

Birds and the Mules of the Web

Do you go to CNN to get your news, or do you have an RSS feed? Do you use email to forward your thoughts and interests to large groups or do you use Twitter? Although I hate to use absolutes or generalize, it is fair to say that the majority of the online audience can be grouped into two main categories:

Mules: Heavy in number and somewhat stubborn. They like to go the same places because they are reliable and easy. These are the folks who are now getting comfortable with YouTube and/or Wikipedia. They have found large and excellent resources for content and they know they can always go back to get it again.

Birds: Jump from place to place. The venues these people frequent aren’t as heavily trafficked and the mules of the internet either can’t, don’t want to, or don’t know how to reach the branches of the many web 2.0 properties. These entities offer what consumers seek, but with innovative packaging or specific attributes which exceed what the majority of the internet audience is used to seeing.

I’m not going to use this post to talk about what demographics comprise the Mules and Birds. Those are statistics that are ever changing around a space which is very blurred. The purpose of this post is to understand that there are two distinct groups that have two distinct types of behavior which need to be catered to in specific ways.

With the recent explosion in “social media” many sites which have largely catered to Mules have started implementing social functionality to mimic the abilities of other start-up like media providers. While there’s nothing wrong with such changes, those mule loving sites need to understand that they shouldn’t assume those functions will be a hit. The Birds will of course visit those sites and appreciate those functions, but the vast majority of visitors will be there because of the content and not because of the content + the added tools.

In my mind, the reason the stodgier older sites are expanding their social functionality is because they knows the Birds are the most vocal online. And they want those Birds to talk about how innovative the established online brands are with their design changes. But the key obstacle is that Birds are kind of like indie rock fans. Once the band gets played on MTV or the local top 40 station, it’s not cool anymore. It’s wonderful that you can now Digg stories on CNN money but bloggers aren’t going to talk about it. They have been exhibiting these kinds of behaviors for a long time (in the time frame of the internet) and that isn’t news to them.

On the flip side, when supplying content or tools for the Birds. Providers need to remember not to try and duplicate the quality and mass resources of the Mule feeders. A site like Blinkx, which leverages a great piece of video search technology isn’t going to take the place of a site like Youtube. DIGG isn’t going to the take the place of Google Search (yet) as a default resource even for the Birds. The key for online brands serving the Birds is to cherish each and every one of their users because they are fewer in number albeit more influential. These online brands need to constantly be changing and evolving while they are serving the Birds. Eventually, the branches of web 2.0 that stick around will become thick. The Birds will fly away to another tree, but hopefully (for the online brand) the mainstream audience (the Mules) will take their place.

Being Prepared for Success is the Best Way to Maximize it

If you create passionate enthusiasm for your product, you will also create passionate criticism. There are certain brands that have die-hard fans; the kind of fans who will buy the newer version of a product even if the cost far outweighs the benefit. Whether that fervor is created by spectacular marketing, good service, and/or an innovative design the reality of the situation is that expectations are going to be set incredibly high.

When these kinds of expectations are set, you’re going to end up having three core types of customers.

· Devout Brandvangelists

· Positive Rationalizers

· Disappointed Acceptors

Devout Brandvangelists: These are people that are best found within the crowd of loyal Apple owners. They are the ones who will go out of their way to correct misconceptions and try to convert the neutral folks over to their side. They are the ones that will go onto sites like “Please Fix the iPhone” and defend Apple on Apple’s behalf for free. This is an extremely valuable group of people and arguably the best R of the ROI Apple has earned from its efforts.

Optimistic Rationalizers: Those who know there are some pitfalls initially in version 1.0, but know that with time (or possibly later generations) these issues will be addressed. The people who will provide the “buts” or in other words, “yes....X is the case unfortunately, BUT...” Consider this group to be the Switzerland of your consumers. They cushion your sales but won’t contribute much to hurting or helping your brand’s value.

Disappointed Acceptors: These are the folks who are on the opposite end of being vocal on behalf of a product or brand and the people that companies like Apple hope are drowned out by the devout brandvangelists. For many, purchasing the iPhone was their first foray into the “i” brand and expectations were set very highly. They heard about all the wonders of the brand and when they find flaws that cloud that idealized story they have been told, they are hypercritical of them. Is the fact that you can’t send an MMS file on an iPhone a horrible defect considering you can send an email or upload to facebook directly from your phone? Arguably not, but that happens to be the biggest (37,000 people) complaint being voiced. This group of people has accepted the purchase they made and will stick with it for some time, but the loyalty to the brand/product is flaky at best.

So what does this all mean for brands who seek to cultivate such a range of passionate users? It means they need to understand AHEAD of time that the emotion they are going to inspire in their customers is going to go in both directions. Accommodating the positive feelings is easy. That involves documenting positive press, increasing production, and of course making stock holders happy. Neutralizing the negative requires much more effort but with proper preparation beforehand, it’s possible to make that process less painful:

1.) Test out your product as much as you can with real customers. Try to document as many issues your testers have with your product before the release. Even if you can’t fix them before the launch, you’ll have ample time to formulate the best response to them. Have a strong community manager to funnel feedback to R&D throughout the life cycle of the product so the next generation addresses the biggest concerns.

2.) Build venues for consumer feedback before a 3rd party does it for you. Companies like Dell have created a conversation driven forum for people to give their feedback directly to the brands they are passionate about. If consumers are being listened to, they will be open to giving feedback in your environment. Encourage them to talk there because the more they do, the easier it is to drown out the extremely passionate negative influencers who are talking in venues outside of your control.

3.) Know who your largest competitor is and find out their strengths. Those strengths are the points that disappointed customers are going to use to fuel their fire, or worse, the brand/product they are going to switch to when the current frustrations start to outweigh the benefits.

As a brand, it should be considered fortunate if these kinds of passion groups exists because it means your product does have value. If it was terrible outright, then no one would care, but hopefully the sign of frustration also indicates the greater symbol of success. And being prepared for success is the best way to maximize it.