The video below is a lighthearted look at something quite serious to online marketers--the poor quality and annoyance of online banner ads.
Banners ads have become cheap, and I mean that in two senses of the word--CPMs are ridiculously low, and many of the ads are perceived by consumers as annoying, seedy, and gaudy. This makes banner ads easy to ignore, or in the words of this funny video: "Most banner ads aren't harmful to humans, provided you leave them alone and avoid making direct eye contact."
Studies show that consumers hold banner ads in very low esteem. Late last year Nielsen reported that consumers find banner ads the second least trustworthy ad medium; only mobile banner ads were seen as less trustworthy.
I think the reason for this is pretty easy to discern; just look at Yahoo's home page tonight. Yahoo is the second most trafficked site on the Internet, and their home page should be a spot for high-quality brands to advertise. Instead, the home page currently has banner ads for online degrees and free credit reports.
Why would a marketer wish to have their brand promoted in this same spot in the future, after visitors have been educated to ignore, or worse yet, to think poorly of the products advertised here? It's a little like placing an ad at the back of a local publication among the pages where consumers expect to find dating and phone sex ads.
Speaking of which, Web sites and online ad networks may be well advised to take a cue from Manhattan Media, which purchased the New York Press and immediately banned sexually-oriented ads from the publication. The company noted that while it would “initially take a financial hit by dropping sex ads...the long-term growth prospects for this widely circulated newspaper (will) dramatically increase as it is remade into a reputable publication.”
High-quality sites would be better off to reserve prime online real estate for high-quality brands, even if this means accepting lower ad rates in the short-term. The practice of providing inventory to the highest bidder--no matter how chintzy the product, brand or creative--is degrading consumer perception of online ads.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Social Media is a communications channel and not a marketing tactic
Over on MediaPost, David Berkowitz offers a humorous and informative take on "Ten Questions Not To Ask A Social Media Panel." He suggests questions to avoid asking of Social Media experts unless you want either an angry or boring response. For example, don't use the "V" word, the "C" word, or the "A word (as in "viral," "campaign," or "advertising").
What I find interesting is how most of the questions David lists betray a desire to leverage social media as a marketing tool: "How are you measuring social media," "How do you determine the return on investment for social media," and "What's a friend worth?" (That last question must be asked by some mighty lonely people, don't you think?)
I'm glad that marketers are attending social media conferences and seeking to understand how social media is changing the environment in which they cultivate relationships between the brand and consumers. But it seems marketers are coming alone; where are their peers from other corners of the organization?
While I believe marketers should have a significant role in an organization's social media efforts, maybe it's time we understood:
Rather than think of Social Media as part of the marketing toolkit, it would be more accurate to consider Social Media as a communications channel. Social Media isn't a one-way advertising medium but a channel for two-way (or more) dialog; it is much more akin to the telephone or email than to an ad medium such as TV or print.
Email makes a fine metaphor for exploring Social Media. Email can be used for marketing; the marketing department can develop an eCRM strategy, build a permission database, segment the audience, and launch offers via email. Marketers can also buy ads in existing email newsletters and, although it is not usually recommended, can purchase lists to send email offers to consumers.
But although marketing has a significant role in the way the organization employs email, the marketing department is responsible for just a small piece of the email pie. In other divisions, email is used for intracompany communications, to build relations with partners, to provide service to customers, to facilitate sales, and to schedule interviews for job candidates.
Every department and just about every employee in the modern corporation uses email as a tool, and this is how Social Media will also soon develop. Marketing will have some role, such as advertising (if someone figures out how to make social advertising work), blogger relations and social media PR, creation of branded communities, development of widgets to enhance consumers' social media experience, and preparation and execution of rapid response via Social Media channels to combat incorrect or negative PR.
But the impact of social media will be felt far beyond the reaches of the marketing department. For example, today recruiters may participate in employment forums, but in the future they'll be seeking current and future candidates wherever they may be engaged in Social Media. This includes creating relations with talented individuals who may someday be interested in changing jobs, consistently sharing information about your organization's work environment to encourage response from lurkers, networking for referrals, and seeking out and inquiring with individuals who meet current needs, even if they have yet to express an interest.
Another example for how Social Media will be used outside of marketing is in the customer service group. Rather than wait for a consumer to express a need and then navigate through your phone system or Web site, customer service professionals will constantly monitor social media for compliments and complaints, engaging consumers and providing proactive support.
Brands could be using proactive Social Media to help consumers and create goodwill today. A Summize search shows the word Target has been used on Twitter 15 times in the past two hours; around half of these Tweets refer to the retailer. People are talking about Target, but the company isn't listening or responding.
sarahbellum says "Nothing is better than shopping at Target with your best girlfriend. Nothing," and Christyxcore says, "We're goin to target. Love the Target." These are nice comments being broadcast by consumers, so why isn't Target saying "Thank you"? missloulou says, "i need to get comfortable shoes for work target sandals are murdering my feet!," but Target isn't there to find out when she purchased them or to offer assistance with an exchange. Engaging sarahbellum, Christyxcor, and missloulou may not immediately increase sales, but it would position Target as a caring, appreciative, involved, and smart retailer.
It would seem the current and future impact of Social Media is not being felt or understood throughout organizations quite yet. If it were, the preponderance of blog posts and questions being asked at Social Media panels wouldn't be framed in the context of marketing. Marketers are to be congratulated for being quick to recognize the opportunities of Social Media, but if they really want to be sure their organizations are getting a jump on this new communications trend, they need to stop thinking only from the frame of reference of advertising and start encouraging a coordinated effort throughout the organization.
Thanks to Jeremy over at Kohl's for the MediaPost link.
What I find interesting is how most of the questions David lists betray a desire to leverage social media as a marketing tool: "How are you measuring social media," "How do you determine the return on investment for social media," and "What's a friend worth?" (That last question must be asked by some mighty lonely people, don't you think?)
I'm glad that marketers are attending social media conferences and seeking to understand how social media is changing the environment in which they cultivate relationships between the brand and consumers. But it seems marketers are coming alone; where are their peers from other corners of the organization?
While I believe marketers should have a significant role in an organization's social media efforts, maybe it's time we understood:
Social Media is a communications channel and not a marketing tactic!
Rather than think of Social Media as part of the marketing toolkit, it would be more accurate to consider Social Media as a communications channel. Social Media isn't a one-way advertising medium but a channel for two-way (or more) dialog; it is much more akin to the telephone or email than to an ad medium such as TV or print.
Email makes a fine metaphor for exploring Social Media. Email can be used for marketing; the marketing department can develop an eCRM strategy, build a permission database, segment the audience, and launch offers via email. Marketers can also buy ads in existing email newsletters and, although it is not usually recommended, can purchase lists to send email offers to consumers.
But although marketing has a significant role in the way the organization employs email, the marketing department is responsible for just a small piece of the email pie. In other divisions, email is used for intracompany communications, to build relations with partners, to provide service to customers, to facilitate sales, and to schedule interviews for job candidates.
Every department and just about every employee in the modern corporation uses email as a tool, and this is how Social Media will also soon develop. Marketing will have some role, such as advertising (if someone figures out how to make social advertising work), blogger relations and social media PR, creation of branded communities, development of widgets to enhance consumers' social media experience, and preparation and execution of rapid response via Social Media channels to combat incorrect or negative PR.
But the impact of social media will be felt far beyond the reaches of the marketing department. For example, today recruiters may participate in employment forums, but in the future they'll be seeking current and future candidates wherever they may be engaged in Social Media. This includes creating relations with talented individuals who may someday be interested in changing jobs, consistently sharing information about your organization's work environment to encourage response from lurkers, networking for referrals, and seeking out and inquiring with individuals who meet current needs, even if they have yet to express an interest.
Another example for how Social Media will be used outside of marketing is in the customer service group. Rather than wait for a consumer to express a need and then navigate through your phone system or Web site, customer service professionals will constantly monitor social media for compliments and complaints, engaging consumers and providing proactive support.
Brands could be using proactive Social Media to help consumers and create goodwill today. A Summize search shows the word Target has been used on Twitter 15 times in the past two hours; around half of these Tweets refer to the retailer. People are talking about Target, but the company isn't listening or responding.
sarahbellum says "Nothing is better than shopping at Target with your best girlfriend. Nothing," and Christyxcore says, "We're goin to target. Love the Target." These are nice comments being broadcast by consumers, so why isn't Target saying "Thank you"? missloulou says, "i need to get comfortable shoes for work target sandals are murdering my feet!," but Target isn't there to find out when she purchased them or to offer assistance with an exchange. Engaging sarahbellum, Christyxcor, and missloulou may not immediately increase sales, but it would position Target as a caring, appreciative, involved, and smart retailer.
It would seem the current and future impact of Social Media is not being felt or understood throughout organizations quite yet. If it were, the preponderance of blog posts and questions being asked at Social Media panels wouldn't be framed in the context of marketing. Marketers are to be congratulated for being quick to recognize the opportunities of Social Media, but if they really want to be sure their organizations are getting a jump on this new communications trend, they need to stop thinking only from the frame of reference of advertising and start encouraging a coordinated effort throughout the organization.
Thanks to Jeremy over at Kohl's for the MediaPost link.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Are You Focused on the Consumer or Yourself? Disney and Apple Demonstrate the Experiential Difference
Some time ago, I visited Disney.com and had what might be described as a violent reaction to what I found on the home page.
I am a huge Disney fan and have become accustomed to being treated as a "guest," whether I visit a theme park or their Web site. The organization has a storied history of dedicating itself to the guest experience, and much of what I know of experiential marketing has come from studying Disney. It is because I hold Disney in such esteem that my disappointing experience produced such an intensely negative reaction.
On this particular visit to Disney.com, I found a link on the home page that promised a "Main Street parade." Intrigued, I wondered if I might see a live video feed of a parade from the Magic Kingdom or a behind-the-scenes peak at the staging of one of their enormous marching spectacles. I had no particular idea of what I'd find when I clicked that link, but I expected to experience some variety of Disney magic.
What I found, after waiting 30 seconds for the Flash movie to download and launch, was a cartoon parade of wagons and floats, each one containing a brand logo of a Disney sponsor. That was it--nothing but a review of corporate logos. Had any thought gone into this promotion featured so prominently on their home page, it would've become obvious this little movie furnished no value to any concerned party:
This experience came to mind when I read the New York Times article, "In Overhaul, Disney.com Seeks a Path to More Fun." It turns out Disney has come to realize its Web site is too much about itself and not enough about the guest. According to the NY Times, "Disney is trying to position its Web site more as a place that entertains and less of one that exists to promote Disney wares."
In other words, they are trying to move their site further up the Experiential Marketing Continuum. Rather than provide a site that is merely welcoming--one that equips consumers with information about Disney products--Disney instead is seeking to make their site desirable and more worthy of repeat visits. This shift focuses on what consumers want, and thus encourages consumers to spend more time with Disney, to think of the organization as an integral part of their entertainment and relaxation time, and to make a strong emotional connection that will bear far more fruit than any animated parade of logos.
The changes, which are the second significant rejiggering of Disney.com in as many years, include some exciting and smart ideas. For example, one subtle modification will be to the navigational structure. The current Disney.com has categories such as “Movies,” “TV” and “Live Events," but new options will include “Games,” “Videos” and “Characters.” The current information structure isn't bad--it's descriptive and intuitive to visitors--but it focuses on the company; you could add "our" in front of each category: "Our Movies" and "Our TV Shows." By comparison, the new structure focuses on the content consumers seek--their favorite character or the videos they want to see.
The changes will be more substantial than just navigation. The new Disney.com will feature more videos (including some full-length Disney films), more games, and more activities that bridge the online and mobile worlds. This focus on the consumer experience is an exhilarating and fitting direction for Disney.com.
Another organization doing exciting things to improve the consumer's experience is Apple. We all know that Apple has an obsessive focus on elegant usability that has allowed its digital music players to crush Microsoft's similar product and its laptops and desktops to begin to chip away at Microsoft's PC hegemony. What you may not have realized (but perhaps appreciate) is that Apple brings its obsession with usability to its real world stores.
An Ad Age article entitled, "How Apple Is Blurring the Line Between Marketing and Service," describes how Apple is executing its customer-focused approach within its stores. Apple has increased the number of "concierges" who greet consumers at the door with the question, ""How can I help you, and where would you like to go?" As Ad Age notes, "These employees don't wait until you look utterly confused to ask you what you need. They intercept you -- though not intrusively and always with a smile... They assume you arrive at the Apple Store looking specifically for something, and in most cases they are right."
Much like Disney is doing with its Web site, Apple is moving the shopping experience up the Experiential Marketing Continuum. Most people find shopping a reasonably welcome experience, but is it desirable? Apple believes "service is marketing": Consumers aren't a bother; their questions aren't distractions; and their needs don't disturb Apple employees but are the reason the employees are there.
The Apple and Disney examples demonstrate a key concept in experiential marketing: Are your efforts focused on benefiting just yourself or on adding value to the consumer's experience?
Most Web sites exist for the purpose of promoting the brand's product--these sites help consumers to the point of purchase, but nothing further. And most retail outlets are staffed with the minimum number of people required to populate registers and stock shelves--the employees are there at the service of their employer. It is clear Disney and Apple bring a different level of commitment to the consumer than do most of their competitors.
Of course, focusing on the consumer isn't an act of corporate altruism--it should be done in a way that creates more brand value. Check out Apple's 71% market share in digital media players and the fact they "dominated the U.S. retail market for high-end computers in the first quarter of 2008, selling two out of every three PCs priced over $1,000." As for Disney, last year's redesign vaulted the average time spent on the site to 44.9 minutes; even though that's the kind of engagement most marketers would kill for, Disney wants more and knows it can get it by focusing even more on the consumer.
In an age of cost cutting and efficiency, Apple and Disney demonstrate how investing in the consumer experience pays dividends.
I am a huge Disney fan and have become accustomed to being treated as a "guest," whether I visit a theme park or their Web site. The organization has a storied history of dedicating itself to the guest experience, and much of what I know of experiential marketing has come from studying Disney. It is because I hold Disney in such esteem that my disappointing experience produced such an intensely negative reaction.
On this particular visit to Disney.com, I found a link on the home page that promised a "Main Street parade." Intrigued, I wondered if I might see a live video feed of a parade from the Magic Kingdom or a behind-the-scenes peak at the staging of one of their enormous marching spectacles. I had no particular idea of what I'd find when I clicked that link, but I expected to experience some variety of Disney magic.
What I found, after waiting 30 seconds for the Flash movie to download and launch, was a cartoon parade of wagons and floats, each one containing a brand logo of a Disney sponsor. That was it--nothing but a review of corporate logos. Had any thought gone into this promotion featured so prominently on their home page, it would've become obvious this little movie furnished no value to any concerned party:
- I felt my time had been wasted and that Disney broke it's brand promise to treat me with respect.
- Disney positioned itself as a selfish and unwelcoming host, more interested in its own interests than in consumers'.
- The brands featured received no value, since few if any consumers lured into this marketing trap were likely to dedicate precious minutes observing a series of brand symbols.
This experience came to mind when I read the New York Times article, "In Overhaul, Disney.com Seeks a Path to More Fun." It turns out Disney has come to realize its Web site is too much about itself and not enough about the guest. According to the NY Times, "Disney is trying to position its Web site more as a place that entertains and less of one that exists to promote Disney wares."
In other words, they are trying to move their site further up the Experiential Marketing Continuum. Rather than provide a site that is merely welcoming--one that equips consumers with information about Disney products--Disney instead is seeking to make their site desirable and more worthy of repeat visits. This shift focuses on what consumers want, and thus encourages consumers to spend more time with Disney, to think of the organization as an integral part of their entertainment and relaxation time, and to make a strong emotional connection that will bear far more fruit than any animated parade of logos.
The changes, which are the second significant rejiggering of Disney.com in as many years, include some exciting and smart ideas. For example, one subtle modification will be to the navigational structure. The current Disney.com has categories such as “Movies,” “TV” and “Live Events," but new options will include “Games,” “Videos” and “Characters.” The current information structure isn't bad--it's descriptive and intuitive to visitors--but it focuses on the company; you could add "our" in front of each category: "Our Movies" and "Our TV Shows." By comparison, the new structure focuses on the content consumers seek--their favorite character or the videos they want to see.
The changes will be more substantial than just navigation. The new Disney.com will feature more videos (including some full-length Disney films), more games, and more activities that bridge the online and mobile worlds. This focus on the consumer experience is an exhilarating and fitting direction for Disney.com.
Another organization doing exciting things to improve the consumer's experience is Apple. We all know that Apple has an obsessive focus on elegant usability that has allowed its digital music players to crush Microsoft's similar product and its laptops and desktops to begin to chip away at Microsoft's PC hegemony. What you may not have realized (but perhaps appreciate) is that Apple brings its obsession with usability to its real world stores.
An Ad Age article entitled, "How Apple Is Blurring the Line Between Marketing and Service," describes how Apple is executing its customer-focused approach within its stores. Apple has increased the number of "concierges" who greet consumers at the door with the question, ""How can I help you, and where would you like to go?" As Ad Age notes, "These employees don't wait until you look utterly confused to ask you what you need. They intercept you -- though not intrusively and always with a smile... They assume you arrive at the Apple Store looking specifically for something, and in most cases they are right."
Much like Disney is doing with its Web site, Apple is moving the shopping experience up the Experiential Marketing Continuum. Most people find shopping a reasonably welcome experience, but is it desirable? Apple believes "service is marketing": Consumers aren't a bother; their questions aren't distractions; and their needs don't disturb Apple employees but are the reason the employees are there.
The Apple and Disney examples demonstrate a key concept in experiential marketing: Are your efforts focused on benefiting just yourself or on adding value to the consumer's experience?
Most Web sites exist for the purpose of promoting the brand's product--these sites help consumers to the point of purchase, but nothing further. And most retail outlets are staffed with the minimum number of people required to populate registers and stock shelves--the employees are there at the service of their employer. It is clear Disney and Apple bring a different level of commitment to the consumer than do most of their competitors.
Of course, focusing on the consumer isn't an act of corporate altruism--it should be done in a way that creates more brand value. Check out Apple's 71% market share in digital media players and the fact they "dominated the U.S. retail market for high-end computers in the first quarter of 2008, selling two out of every three PCs priced over $1,000." As for Disney, last year's redesign vaulted the average time spent on the site to 44.9 minutes; even though that's the kind of engagement most marketers would kill for, Disney wants more and knows it can get it by focusing even more on the consumer.
In an age of cost cutting and efficiency, Apple and Disney demonstrate how investing in the consumer experience pays dividends.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Experiential Marketing Continuum, DVRs, and the Future of TV
According to a Mediaweek article, DVR viewership continues to rise, and the impact is quite startling. Magna Global USA released data on DVR usage and ratings from the past TV season. It found that even though just 25% of TV homes have a DVR, "the current impact of DVR viewing on ratings is twice as high as the impact of VCRs when they were in 90 percent of TV homes." What this means is that DVRs account for 9 percent of the Big Five networks’ TV ratings, and 15 percent of viewing by adults 18-49.
Of course, the growth of DVRs and their impact on television viewing will only accelerate. Magna is projecting that in just four years, nearly 25 percent of all prime-time viewing on the broadcast networks among adults 18-49 will be time-shifted.
While the report doesn't address the impact of DVRs upon ad viewing, I think we can all guess how time-shifting alters consumers' exposure to TV ads. What will happen in 2012 when key consumer demographic groups are zapping 25% of marketers' TV ads? And what about online TV viewing? The Magna report didn't consider online viewing of prime-time shows, which is yet another way that technology is chipping away at television's viewership, ratings, and ad dollars. I watched two of this season's 14 episodes of "Lost" on ABC.com, and I actually found the experience more pleasant than on broadcast television, with much briefer commercial interruptions.
Why are consumers shifting away from live TV and towards DVRs and online TV? Part of it is an issue of control, but I also believe it is because consumers increasingly perceive the TV ad channel as being unwelcome, intrusive, and valueless. Yes, I know the ads pay for the free content, but consumers are being so bombarded with advertising that they no longer are able to perceive value in television as an advertising medium.
It doesn't help that networks keep cramming more and more ads into their programming. According to Wikipedia, in the 1960s a typical hour-long show would run for 51 minutes excluding advertisements. Today, a similar program would only be 42 minutes long. The incessant creep toward less entertainment and more ads is continuing today; network prime-time commercial time in 2006 rose 2.4% to 5,429 minutes. Why, in the face of a growing consumer revolt against ads, the networks would decide the appropriate response is more advertising is the kind of question better left to psychologists and philosophers.
TV networks might find a way to reverse or at least slow consumers' avoidance of TV ads by seeking to make TV advertising more appealing and welcome. This could be done by decreasing the number of ads, increasing content time, raising ad rates, providing a better experience to consumers, and allowing brands to cut through the clutter with fewer interruptions and greater sponsorship and affiliation with particular programming.
As discussed on this blog in a post about the Experiential Marketing Continuum, consumers are exerting more power and influence in the channels available to marketers, so marketers must consider ways to pull consumers with value-added marketing rather than alienate consumers with intrusive and unwelcome ad tactics. It's easy to divine the channels consumers find unwelcome--these are the channels in which consumers strive to eliminate or filter ads, even if it means paying to avoid advertising.
If TV networks do nothing--or worse yet, crush still more ads into prime time--an upheaval in the marketing and entertainment space could occur as soon as within 5 to 10 years (or roughly as many years as "American Idol" has been on the air). I'm not a sufficient futurist to know what this will mean to free television, but I suspect ABC, NBC, CBS, and other free networks will become paid channels a la HBO (which has, of course, offered some of the most buzz-worthy and critically-praised original series of the past decade). Since Americans are already accustomed to paying extra for cable or satellite access, and since they're accepting the price of DVR service as a cost of TV enjoyment, this shift may be less earth shattering than it seems at first glance.
If decreasing ad time sounds unrealistic, check out how advertising is working online on sites such as ABC.com and Hulu.com--the number of ad interruptions are the same, but each is shorter. I haven't seen any data on viewership, skipping, or perception of advertising within Web-based TV yet, so all I can do is share my own perceptions. For example, because of the briefness of the interruptions, I've found that I have no objection to the fact the ads cannot be skipped online. And, either by accident or in an act of brilliant foresight, the ad interruptions in online shows are so short that consumers can't use the time to get up and go to the bathroom or grab a bite in the kitchen, so each ad is actually viewed in its entirety.
No matter what happens to free TV and television advertising, marketers must recognize how weary consumers are becoming of our advertising-saturated society. According to a 2004 Yankelovich Partners poll, 65% of Americans say they are "constantly bombarded with too much" advertising and 61% think the quantity of advertising and marketing they are exposed to "is out of control." The way to overcome this backlash is to focus on the sorts of channels and tactics that encourage acceptance within consumers.
In the new, consumer-controlled marketing world, those of us in the industry need to find ways to not simply avoid annoying consumers but to get them to seek us out. The way to do so is to shift our marketing mix to more welcome and desired ad media and marketing strategies. Experimenting with shorter or fewer ads is one way to make the television medium more welcoming to consumers, but the biggest bang for the buck will come from marketers exploring newer and more valuable (to consumers) marketing channels.
Of course, the growth of DVRs and their impact on television viewing will only accelerate. Magna is projecting that in just four years, nearly 25 percent of all prime-time viewing on the broadcast networks among adults 18-49 will be time-shifted.
While the report doesn't address the impact of DVRs upon ad viewing, I think we can all guess how time-shifting alters consumers' exposure to TV ads. What will happen in 2012 when key consumer demographic groups are zapping 25% of marketers' TV ads? And what about online TV viewing? The Magna report didn't consider online viewing of prime-time shows, which is yet another way that technology is chipping away at television's viewership, ratings, and ad dollars. I watched two of this season's 14 episodes of "Lost" on ABC.com, and I actually found the experience more pleasant than on broadcast television, with much briefer commercial interruptions.
Why are consumers shifting away from live TV and towards DVRs and online TV? Part of it is an issue of control, but I also believe it is because consumers increasingly perceive the TV ad channel as being unwelcome, intrusive, and valueless. Yes, I know the ads pay for the free content, but consumers are being so bombarded with advertising that they no longer are able to perceive value in television as an advertising medium.
It doesn't help that networks keep cramming more and more ads into their programming. According to Wikipedia, in the 1960s a typical hour-long show would run for 51 minutes excluding advertisements. Today, a similar program would only be 42 minutes long. The incessant creep toward less entertainment and more ads is continuing today; network prime-time commercial time in 2006 rose 2.4% to 5,429 minutes. Why, in the face of a growing consumer revolt against ads, the networks would decide the appropriate response is more advertising is the kind of question better left to psychologists and philosophers.
TV networks might find a way to reverse or at least slow consumers' avoidance of TV ads by seeking to make TV advertising more appealing and welcome. This could be done by decreasing the number of ads, increasing content time, raising ad rates, providing a better experience to consumers, and allowing brands to cut through the clutter with fewer interruptions and greater sponsorship and affiliation with particular programming.
As discussed on this blog in a post about the Experiential Marketing Continuum, consumers are exerting more power and influence in the channels available to marketers, so marketers must consider ways to pull consumers with value-added marketing rather than alienate consumers with intrusive and unwelcome ad tactics. It's easy to divine the channels consumers find unwelcome--these are the channels in which consumers strive to eliminate or filter ads, even if it means paying to avoid advertising.
If TV networks do nothing--or worse yet, crush still more ads into prime time--an upheaval in the marketing and entertainment space could occur as soon as within 5 to 10 years (or roughly as many years as "American Idol" has been on the air). I'm not a sufficient futurist to know what this will mean to free television, but I suspect ABC, NBC, CBS, and other free networks will become paid channels a la HBO (which has, of course, offered some of the most buzz-worthy and critically-praised original series of the past decade). Since Americans are already accustomed to paying extra for cable or satellite access, and since they're accepting the price of DVR service as a cost of TV enjoyment, this shift may be less earth shattering than it seems at first glance.
If decreasing ad time sounds unrealistic, check out how advertising is working online on sites such as ABC.com and Hulu.com--the number of ad interruptions are the same, but each is shorter. I haven't seen any data on viewership, skipping, or perception of advertising within Web-based TV yet, so all I can do is share my own perceptions. For example, because of the briefness of the interruptions, I've found that I have no objection to the fact the ads cannot be skipped online. And, either by accident or in an act of brilliant foresight, the ad interruptions in online shows are so short that consumers can't use the time to get up and go to the bathroom or grab a bite in the kitchen, so each ad is actually viewed in its entirety.
No matter what happens to free TV and television advertising, marketers must recognize how weary consumers are becoming of our advertising-saturated society. According to a 2004 Yankelovich Partners poll, 65% of Americans say they are "constantly bombarded with too much" advertising and 61% think the quantity of advertising and marketing they are exposed to "is out of control." The way to overcome this backlash is to focus on the sorts of channels and tactics that encourage acceptance within consumers.
In the new, consumer-controlled marketing world, those of us in the industry need to find ways to not simply avoid annoying consumers but to get them to seek us out. The way to do so is to shift our marketing mix to more welcome and desired ad media and marketing strategies. Experimenting with shorter or fewer ads is one way to make the television medium more welcoming to consumers, but the biggest bang for the buck will come from marketers exploring newer and more valuable (to consumers) marketing channels.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Importance of Analogies: Social Media isn't a "Discussion"
Social Media is often likened to a conversation where marketers "seek to be part of the discussion" or "wish to engage consumers one-to-one." Alas, this analogy is wrong and may neglect important aspects that differentiate Social Media from other forms of communication.
Marketers didn't need social media to have a discussion with consumers. Email, which has been a primary online activity for over a decade, has always allowed for one-to-one discussions with consumers. Nor did we need technology to enable one-to-one contact; before email, consumers and brands used the telephone and snail mail to engage in discussions. (I still vividly remember when, in response to a letter I'd written for a school project, Dole Foods sent a packet stuffed with brochures, labels, and coupons. That was one-to-one and, since I still recall my excitement at the treasure trove I'd received some 35 years later, it was also experiential.)
The analogies that liken Social Media to a private discussion are widespread but incorrect (and I've been guilty of using them, myself). A more appropriate simile is that Social Media is like a party already underway. Groups of people are gathered, they have existing networks of relationships, and they are already talking.
And brands should not make the mistake of thinking they are guests of honor at the party; in fact, it may be exactly the opposite. Nielsen's recent "Trust in Advertising" report reveals that consumers are 30% or more likely to believe recommendations from other consumers than they are information provided by brands on Web sites, on TV, on the radio, in magazines, and in every other medium except newspaper. So, don't expect partygoers to stop and pay attention just because your brand is in attendance.
The accuracy of the party metaphor becomes even more apparent when you think of the distributed nature of social media. People are talking about your brand on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and YouTube, not to mention on hundred or thousands of blogs. You can no more control the many discussions underway across the Internet than you can command the floor at a large party. Sure, you can try to shout, but that will encourage others not to pay attention but to leave (and to take with them a very poor impression of you).
So if social media is a party and "joining the discussion" is the incorrect analogy, how might we frame a brand's place in social media? Perhaps "entering the fray" is a better way to think of it.
You might wonder if all this focus on analogies is an intellectual exercise without purpose, but here's why it matters: Once you perceive social media not as individual discussions but as a never-ending and constantly-shifting party, you can begin to appreciate what it takes to succeed. The following tips are derived from party etiquette sites such as those found here and here:
Marketers didn't need social media to have a discussion with consumers. Email, which has been a primary online activity for over a decade, has always allowed for one-to-one discussions with consumers. Nor did we need technology to enable one-to-one contact; before email, consumers and brands used the telephone and snail mail to engage in discussions. (I still vividly remember when, in response to a letter I'd written for a school project, Dole Foods sent a packet stuffed with brochures, labels, and coupons. That was one-to-one and, since I still recall my excitement at the treasure trove I'd received some 35 years later, it was also experiential.)
The analogies that liken Social Media to a private discussion are widespread but incorrect (and I've been guilty of using them, myself). A more appropriate simile is that Social Media is like a party already underway. Groups of people are gathered, they have existing networks of relationships, and they are already talking.
And brands should not make the mistake of thinking they are guests of honor at the party; in fact, it may be exactly the opposite. Nielsen's recent "Trust in Advertising" report reveals that consumers are 30% or more likely to believe recommendations from other consumers than they are information provided by brands on Web sites, on TV, on the radio, in magazines, and in every other medium except newspaper. So, don't expect partygoers to stop and pay attention just because your brand is in attendance.
The accuracy of the party metaphor becomes even more apparent when you think of the distributed nature of social media. People are talking about your brand on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and YouTube, not to mention on hundred or thousands of blogs. You can no more control the many discussions underway across the Internet than you can command the floor at a large party. Sure, you can try to shout, but that will encourage others not to pay attention but to leave (and to take with them a very poor impression of you).
So if social media is a party and "joining the discussion" is the incorrect analogy, how might we frame a brand's place in social media? Perhaps "entering the fray" is a better way to think of it.
You might wonder if all this focus on analogies is an intellectual exercise without purpose, but here's why it matters: Once you perceive social media not as individual discussions but as a never-ending and constantly-shifting party, you can begin to appreciate what it takes to succeed. The following tips are derived from party etiquette sites such as those found here and here:
- "Determine what your goals are." Is there a better tip for a smashing party experience or for success in Social Media?
- "Extend your hand and introduce yourself to unfamiliar guests." Be sure to introduce yourself, and be honest. Let others know you represent or are working for a company or brand.
- "Keep conversations away from sex, politics and religion." I'm sure this needs not be said when interacting with others on behalf of your brand, but this tip can also be interpreted more broadly: Set rules and be sure everyone speaking for your brand knows the topics that are in and out of bounds.
- "If attending a cocktail party in a private home, treat household staff with dignity and respect. There are to be no personal or special requests from you to the staff." Do not treat bloggers or bulletin board moderators with anything but professional courtesy. You may not see them as "official" members of the media, but you should treat them with as much care and deference as you would a reporter or editor.
- "By all means, converse. But don't dominate all conversations; be a good listener, too." If you attempt to control the conversation on blogs and boards, others will ignore or complain about you. And don't interrupt--when joining a discussion that is underway, do so respectfully and in a way that enhances the discussion for everyone and not just yourself.
- "Smile, mingle and converse." A successful party is one where you circulate, seek out others, and engage people throughout the room. Your Social Media policy should require the same commitment to covering ground.
- If you are unwelcome in a discussion, leave. Your brand has every right to combat incorrect information, but engaging in a flame war with an unreasonable, bull-headed, and biased invidual won't yield results. If you find yourself unwelcome in a discussion, excuse yourself and find a more welcoming corner of the Social Media party (but continue to monitor the discussion and jump back in if damaging and erroneous gossip is being spread).
- Simply being at the party isn't what impresses others; it is how you behave, the personality and mood you convey, and the respect you show for others that will alter perceptions.
- No one likes a selfish and self-obsessed party guest. Participate with a goal of providing value to other participants rather than focusing on your needs and goals, and you'll be much more likely to enhance your brand.
- Realize that the party will go on with or without you. If you want to know what is being said, or better yet influence others' opinions of you, you have to get dressed and show up.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Neither Political Candidate Votes for Online Display Advertising
An article from Mediaweek notes that online ad buyers are "disappointed, puzzled, even a little impatient" with the fact the presidential candidates are spending so little on online display advertising. "For March, comScore’s Ad Metrix tool found that Obama ran 18.1 million impressions, versus 7.2 million for McCain. To put it in perspective, McDonald’s—hardly a huge spender on the Web—runs 300 million impressions in a single month, while top 10 advertisers like Netflix can run 5 billion."
Some expected this would be the election when ad money flooded to the Internet, but as one sales director put it, "This was not the year it all went digital."
Of course, the fact the candidates aren't ponying up for display ads doesn't mean the Internet hasn't already been a huge factor in the 2008 election. As the graph below demonstrates, traffic to the candidates' sites is still trending upwards and totals in the millions each month.
And if there's any doubt as to the importance of the Internet, you need only hear John Edwards comment that the Internet "is the only reason that Barack Obama is not taking public financing" or read the report that "Obama has raised a record-shattering 287 million dollars since the start of the campaign, fueled by more than 1.5 million small donors who give repeatedly over the Internet."
Then there's the news-making viral video "Yes We Can," which has been viewed approximately 15 million times on YouTube (and millions more times at DipDive.com and other video Web sites). Approximate cost to the Obama campaign of this emotional and much-viewed video? Zero for production; zero for distribution.
The role of the Internet in modern politics is not without legitimate questions. For example, Ron Paul has been incredibly popular on the Internet but has earned relatively few votes in the primaries. Still, it's hard to overlook the role the Internet has had, particularly in Obama's campaign. It's been crucial to the candidate going from underdog to front runner, gaining the kind of awareness that delivers huge crowds to his public appearances, and setting records for fundraising.
So given the Internet has been crucial thus far in the 2008 election, why is this not reflected in online ad spending? I believe there are several reasons:
The 2008 campaign has laid bare the strengths and weaknesses of Internet marketing: Experiential and viral marketing have worked, and display advertising is but a small component of the marketing mix. The emotional "Yes We Can" video created a huge surge of traffic and attention for Obama without a single ad, and both candidates have relied on Word of Mouth to deliver site visits, campaign contributions, and volunteers. With both traditional and Social Media buzzing about the election and stirring videos creating pull, neither campaign sees value in 468- x 60-pixel banner ads.
Some expected this would be the election when ad money flooded to the Internet, but as one sales director put it, "This was not the year it all went digital."
Of course, the fact the candidates aren't ponying up for display ads doesn't mean the Internet hasn't already been a huge factor in the 2008 election. As the graph below demonstrates, traffic to the candidates' sites is still trending upwards and totals in the millions each month.
And if there's any doubt as to the importance of the Internet, you need only hear John Edwards comment that the Internet "is the only reason that Barack Obama is not taking public financing" or read the report that "Obama has raised a record-shattering 287 million dollars since the start of the campaign, fueled by more than 1.5 million small donors who give repeatedly over the Internet."
Then there's the news-making viral video "Yes We Can," which has been viewed approximately 15 million times on YouTube (and millions more times at DipDive.com and other video Web sites). Approximate cost to the Obama campaign of this emotional and much-viewed video? Zero for production; zero for distribution.
The role of the Internet in modern politics is not without legitimate questions. For example, Ron Paul has been incredibly popular on the Internet but has earned relatively few votes in the primaries. Still, it's hard to overlook the role the Internet has had, particularly in Obama's campaign. It's been crucial to the candidate going from underdog to front runner, gaining the kind of awareness that delivers huge crowds to his public appearances, and setting records for fundraising.
So given the Internet has been crucial thus far in the 2008 election, why is this not reflected in online ad spending? I believe there are several reasons:
- Political display ads preach to the converted: Obama supporters know how to find BarackObama.com and aren't prone to clicking on a John McCain ad, and the reverse is true for McCain supporters. As the campaign enters the homestretch, I expect the candidates may find interesting uses for rich media, such as rollover video ads that play inspirational messages that energize their base and encourage voter turnout. But with the sides fairly well drawn and only about 10% undecided, there seems little reason for the parties to start spending on online ads.
- Advertising isn't necessary for the candidates to stay top of mind: With banner ad click rates at microscopic levels, the goal of many online display ad campaigns is to keep brands top of mind and not to encourage immediate direct action. Are awareness and consideration really the challenges for McCain and Obama? If the ads won't encourage supporters of either candidate to click and if consumers are already 100% aware of their options, how would banner advertising benefit the campaigns?
- Online advertising lacks control: Ad buyers would disagree, but there is risk with online advertising. Even the most carefully plotted campaign can result in an ad running adjacent to unflattering content or on an inappropriate site. Mitt Romney's campaign made headlines and appeared clueless when banner ads for the pro-family, anti-gay candidate appeared on Gay.com and FanFiction.net, where amateur authors frequently post homoerotic stories of relationships between Spock, Captain Kirk, and Doctor McCoy. With presidential campaigns hinging on reputation, neither candidate can afford a misstep, particular with so little to gain with online advertising.
Online display ads aren't presidential: There is an inherent problem with the way consumers have come to perceive display advertising--they see it as having low credibility, and it's easy to understand why. As CPMs have dropped, the quality of many ads and advertisers have become embarrassingly bad. When the front page of the site of respected news organization CNN includes debt-reduction ads featuring dancing aliens or video ads purposely disguised to create confusion between advertising and content, it trains consumers to associate the ad medium with brands of poor quality. Recent reports on the top online ad spenders reveal that low-value advertisers such as LowerMyBills, Classmates.com, and free credit reporting services are among the top-spending online advertisers.
The 2008 campaign has laid bare the strengths and weaknesses of Internet marketing: Experiential and viral marketing have worked, and display advertising is but a small component of the marketing mix. The emotional "Yes We Can" video created a huge surge of traffic and attention for Obama without a single ad, and both candidates have relied on Word of Mouth to deliver site visits, campaign contributions, and volunteers. With both traditional and Social Media buzzing about the election and stirring videos creating pull, neither campaign sees value in 468- x 60-pixel banner ads.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Short Takes: 6.24.08
Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:
- Mobile Browsing Report: Opera is sharing what it knows about mobile browsing: 2.9 billion pages in May; US demographic is 80.6% male; and almost half of users over 28 years old. Check out more at http://www.opera.com/mobile_report/2008/05/
BTW, if you have a WinMobile phone and aren't using Opera Mini to browse the Web, you have to download the free browser! - Fake Ad Wins at Cannes and Annoys the Brand Advertised: This is the weirdest marketing news I've heard in quite some time. According to Creative Cooler, "the ad world is chattering away about the JC Penney 'Speed Dressing' win at Cannes last week. The chatter isn't just about how this amusing spot won a Bronze Lion, but that the spot itself is a fake. JC Penney says it had nothing to do with it and is up in arms about the spot ruining the company's wholesome image." (Considering JCP's financial performance as of late, perhaps a little shakeup is in order. One blogger, commenting on this news, started his post with "JC Penney? They're still around?")
NBC, Tim Russert, and Control in Age of Social Media
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."Mario Andretti probably has no idea what social media is, but he may have provided us with the best quote ever on the topic. Control is an illusion, and I don't mean that in some zen-like philosophical way; I mean that the speed of the Internet combined with the power of personal networks is making control an unachievable and useless goal.
- Mario Andretti
In the brief history of social media, we've already seen many high-profile missteps caused by the mistaken belief that the flow of communications can be controlled. In the past six months:
- A Burger King Vice President thought he could control his anonymity when he used his daughter's screen name to make blog posts that included discredited accusations against labor activists; he couldn't.
- Johnson and Johnson thought they could control the fallout from uninviting mom bloggers to a PR event they scheduled for mothers active in Web 2.0; they couldn't.
- And Target believed it could ask a group of students to "keep it like a secret" that the company directed the young adults to sing the praises of the company on Facebook; they were, of course, unable to control the bad PR that resulted.
NBC became the latest organization to learn difficult lessons about control in the era of Social Media. The news organization tried to control the timing of the news of Tim Russert's passing so that they could inform the family before the news hit the wires.
We can all appreciate NBC's intentions, but this is 2008 and their plan didn't work. An employee of a partner organization updated Russert's Wikipedia entry with news of his death 40 minutes before NBC announced the news. NBC, upon learning of the Wikipedia update, changed Russert's entry back, erasing the accurate information that had been posted. NBC is now embarrassed by the incident, and the person who leaked the news has reportedly lost his job.
The blogosphere isn't being kind to NBC. High-profile blogs and Internet media outlets are broadcasting comments such as:
- MediaPost: "It seems that NBC, much like The Associated Press and other old-media businesses, hasn’t yet grasped that news is no longer published in a top-down manner."
- Silicon Alley Insider: "It's one thing for a news organization to decide to delay reporting news of a staffer's death out of deference to his or her family (this makes sense). It's another for the organization to expect other organizations to follow the same policy. And it is yet another thing for someone to deliberately strike accurate facts from a collective record...which is what (they) apparently did."
- CrunchGear: "NBC, of all organizations, should know what to do with news. They have been a trusted source for decades. For them to fumble in this way - to not be able to pick up the phone to call the family immediately, to fail to keep in contact with folks who could tell them it’s OK to run the story, to have to get the news out of an reporter’s death and to presumably get the exclusive - is an egregious chain of failure that led to what can only be described as a debacle."
The implications of Social Media cannot be ignored, nor can they be controlled. The quicker organizations define and educate their employees on expected standards of behavior and communication policies, the sooner they can minimize the likelihood of a Social Media embarrassment. As Mario Andretti knows, the faster you move, the more likely you are to win the race.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Citi Thinks Google Should Wallpaper the Internet with Display Ads
I was quite disappointed to read about the report issued by Citi analyst Mark Mahaney suggesting Google exploit the "opportunity" to monetize site traffic by pushing display advertising on every page they serve on certain properties.
I am not a high-priced financial analyst, but I do know that Google has succeeded in historic proportions by doing exactly the opposite of what Mahaney recommends. While other search engines and sites pasted blinking display ads wherever they could, Google instead put itself into the position of being the preeminent provider of search services to consumers and search advertising to marketers by providing a clean, user-focused interface. Perhaps Mahaney would be well advised to look at how Yahoo and MSN, with their pages of display ads, are performing compared to Google.
Mahaney's calculations provide some interesting insight into how miserably display advertising is performing on the Internet. To calculate how much incremental revenue Google might earn with display advertising, he started by computing the estimated CPM (Cost per Thousand) of advertising on MySpace. His calculations show that display ads are commanding just $1.13 CPM. That strikes me less as a financial figure than an indictment of display ad value and effectiveness. The impact of display ads are so minuscule, and consumers are so immune to them, that each view of a banner ad is worth just one-tenth of one penny.
Mahaney forecasts that plastering display ads on YouTube, Google Maps, Google Images, and other Google properties could add $1 billion of additional revenue in 2009. That sounds like a lot, but Google's revenues were almost $17 billion last year.
Google won't turn up its nose at a possible revenue increase of 6%, but I'm sure they are assessing Mahaney's suggestion with great caution. I don't have access to Citi's report, but according to the info posted to TechCrunch, it appears that Mahaney did not consider the potential negative ramifications that could come if Google includes display ads on every YouTube, Map, and Images page:
More importantly, it seems to me Mahaney is neglecting to consider Google's brand. The company has always been respectful of its Web visitors and aware of how little value banner ads provide to either advertisers or to consumers. The sudden appearance of animated banner ads on a trillion Google pages doesn't strike me as congruent with Google's brand or their world vision.
Just a couple weeks ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt shared his view of how online advertising will work in the future. He said, "The advertising has to be more entertaining, more interesting, more immersive compared to what we have today." Citi's Mahaney is suggesting Google offer more of "what we have today" while Schmidt sees more experiential and welcome ways to market to consumers.
I predict Google will not embrace the Citi report's suggestion that they step backwards by pushing at consumers some of the least successful and least welcome online ad media; instead, I believe Google will find innovative ways, both online and off, to provide value to consumers and advertisers.
I am not a high-priced financial analyst, but I do know that Google has succeeded in historic proportions by doing exactly the opposite of what Mahaney recommends. While other search engines and sites pasted blinking display ads wherever they could, Google instead put itself into the position of being the preeminent provider of search services to consumers and search advertising to marketers by providing a clean, user-focused interface. Perhaps Mahaney would be well advised to look at how Yahoo and MSN, with their pages of display ads, are performing compared to Google.
Mahaney's calculations provide some interesting insight into how miserably display advertising is performing on the Internet. To calculate how much incremental revenue Google might earn with display advertising, he started by computing the estimated CPM (Cost per Thousand) of advertising on MySpace. His calculations show that display ads are commanding just $1.13 CPM. That strikes me less as a financial figure than an indictment of display ad value and effectiveness. The impact of display ads are so minuscule, and consumers are so immune to them, that each view of a banner ad is worth just one-tenth of one penny.
Mahaney forecasts that plastering display ads on YouTube, Google Maps, Google Images, and other Google properties could add $1 billion of additional revenue in 2009. That sounds like a lot, but Google's revenues were almost $17 billion last year.
Google won't turn up its nose at a possible revenue increase of 6%, but I'm sure they are assessing Mahaney's suggestion with great caution. I don't have access to Citi's report, but according to the info posted to TechCrunch, it appears that Mahaney did not consider the potential negative ramifications that could come if Google includes display ads on every YouTube, Map, and Images page:
- Will users abandon Google? On this blog, I've frequently mentioned how fickle Internet audiences can be. MySpace ruled the social media roost just a couple years ago, but once consumers perceived it was becoming too commercial they began an exodus to Facebook (which many feel is now becoming too commercial, as well).
While today it's hard to imagine consumers abandoning YouTube or other Google properties, it isn't out of the question. Nor would it take a mass exodus to eviscerate Mahaney's proposed display ad strategy--if consumers begin to leave Google for other sites, Google could damage the commanding advantage it has in search advertising. Google shouldn't be too quick to kill the goose that laid the $16.6B golden egg in search of a mere $1B more. I question if Mahaney has fully investigated the potential risk of his proposed display ad strategy.
- What is the impact of so much advertising inventory entering the market? As noted, the CPMs for online ads are already quite a bit lower than they were in past years. What would be the impact of having Internet traffic giant Google enter the display ad market with an additional 1 trillion ad pages annually (725 billion for YouTube, 235 billion for Google Images, and 14 billion for Google maps)?
According to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, in 2007 display advertising revenues totaled $7.1 Billion. Mahaney is suggesting that new display ad opportunities could add $1 billion to Google's top line. So, it seems he is suggesting an expansion of total industry-wide display ad revenue of 14% in one year, and we can surmise this also means display ad supply will increase somewhere in the range of 14%. An increase this substantial in the supply of display ad inventory would exert even more downward pressure on CPMs, thus decreasing Google's potential gain.
More importantly, it seems to me Mahaney is neglecting to consider Google's brand. The company has always been respectful of its Web visitors and aware of how little value banner ads provide to either advertisers or to consumers. The sudden appearance of animated banner ads on a trillion Google pages doesn't strike me as congruent with Google's brand or their world vision.
Just a couple weeks ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt shared his view of how online advertising will work in the future. He said, "The advertising has to be more entertaining, more interesting, more immersive compared to what we have today." Citi's Mahaney is suggesting Google offer more of "what we have today" while Schmidt sees more experiential and welcome ways to market to consumers.
I predict Google will not embrace the Citi report's suggestion that they step backwards by pushing at consumers some of the least successful and least welcome online ad media; instead, I believe Google will find innovative ways, both online and off, to provide value to consumers and advertisers.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Government 2.0
Scott Horvath, who maintains Just a Govy, a blog focusing on social media and the government, sent me a fascinating email with thoughts and questions about how Web 2.0 may affect the way our Federal, state, and local governments communicate with citizens. Says Scott:
There certainly are aspects of Social Media that may be difficult if not impossible to incorporate into organizations as bureaucratic as governments. The ideas that drive Web 2.0 and that comprise government differ substantially in several aspects:
What is of interest to me is how, despite the challenges, social media might be of use to those who govern. After some research, I found and imagined several ways government might use Web 2.0. The problem is, while the following concepts use today's social media tools to bring benefits to citizens, none are truly social:
What do you think? Are the rules, laws, and structure of our government simply not prepared to permit Social Media to be exploited? Do you believe government can change sufficiently to permit a more open and two-way dialog with citizens? Or is the government's use of Web 2.0 prevented by legislative firewalls that are appropriate and necessary to the operation of government?
The government is, obviously, a very bureaucratic "company." It's a very top-down type of structure. But social media really eats away at the foundation of that structure and many government organization are very hesitant to really use social media tools for the purposes they're intended for. Instead they use them to continue pushing out messages in a one-way conversation...another dumping ground for information hoping that people will read it.After giving this some thought, I wonder if Social Media and governing simply don't mesh. Those of us who work and live within Web 2.0 believe Social Media will change everything, but what if there are limits to the reach of Social Media (and to how much and how quickly we can expect government to adapt?)
There certainly are aspects of Social Media that may be difficult if not impossible to incorporate into organizations as bureaucratic as governments. The ideas that drive Web 2.0 and that comprise government differ substantially in several aspects:
- Democratic: Social media is a pure direct democracy--the voice of the people, with each person representing themselves and everyone being equal. Our government, for reasons that are both practical and philosophical, is a representative democracy. Practically, it would be impossible for every law or policy question to be brought before the people, and philosophically, majority rule can trample rights of minorities.
- Participation: Social Media isn't social without participation. Our system of government may seem participative, but it is so only at select and predetermined times in the electoral process. For example, while voters may get a time and place at which they may express opinions on bills, it is the actions of our representatives and not of the people that result in the creation of new laws.
In fact, one of the three branches of government, the judicial branch, is purposely (but not entirely) distanced from direct participation of the people. Nor do the people get to affect change any time they want in the executive or legislative branches without specific and difficult processes. The system of government in the U.S. counts on citizen participation, but only within limits. - Dynamic: Social Media is inherently dynamic--it constantly changes as people interact, express themselves, create new content, combine media, add links, and further the discussion. Governments change slowly over time. While many citizens have grown frustrated with the pace of change at the Federal level, the caution and deliberation are not without reason. Change to laws and policies should come slowly and carefully and not based on today's popular opinion (which is prone to change tomorrow).
- Opinionated: Some social media is factual, but what really drives Web 2.0 is the ability to express differences, opinions, attitudes, and beliefs. Governments are not in the opinion business; they are about laws, facts, and findings. When you have a question about an IRS form or whether a property is zoned for a specific sort of development, you don't care about the opinion of an individual; you want the right answer--an answer to which everyone will agree and one that will not change if asked to another individual.
What is of interest to me is how, despite the challenges, social media might be of use to those who govern. After some research, I found and imagined several ways government might use Web 2.0. The problem is, while the following concepts use today's social media tools to bring benefits to citizens, none are truly social:
- Alerts: In times of imminent danger, such as during severe weather, government agencies could broadcast alerts via social media. We've all heard the tests of the emergency broadcast system on radio stations, but think of how much greater the reach would be if governments could blast geographically vital messages via Twitter or Facebook. One moment a user could be commenting about a movie or song they like, and the next they could be receiving a life-saving message to take precautionary actions to avoid a tornado or flash flood.
While this would be an interesting and powerful use of today's social networks, it is not really social--the purpose of this communication isn't to create dialog but to leverage Web 2.0's large, distributed, and constantly-monitored networks. - Customer Service: Many years ago, I worked with a school system to solve a problem: parents perceived that the school system provided very poor service, and the school system was interested in making changes to alter this perception. The first meeting between the consultants and the school administrators went very badly; we were able to get through only a portion of the agenda because a debate erupted over whether parents are "customers." Those who worked for the school system simply did not see themselves as having or serving customers. (The administrators were less interested, it turns out, in making parents happy than they were in getting parents off their backs.)
So, this might not resonate with those within government, but social media could be used to improve customer service with citizens. For example, imagine an online ombudsman to whom you might ask questions. Not sure what tax form to use, which agency to turn to for licensing, or how to reach an elected official--ask the ombudsman.
Of course, this isn't truly social either. Neither the citizens nor the government would want others seeing the personal and possibly sensitive questions and problems. The ombudsman concept works much better as a private email form than as a public Twitter or BB post. - Gathering opinions: Perhaps those we elect could turn to Web 2.0 tools to ask and receive input from their constituents. While this seems an interesting and pertinent use of Social Media, the challenges are easily apparent: Would such an online forum be completely open, or would racist, violent, or other inappropriate content be deleted? Who would do the monitoring? Would deleting a comment--so easily done at the discretion of a privately run blog or bulletin board--be a violation of constitutionally-guaranteed free speech rights? The legal and practical challenges of open discussions seem almost insurmountable for governments.
- Monitoring Social Media: Our elected officials who want to keep their finger on the pulse of Americans could do worse than to turn to the blogosphere, Twitter, or Facebook for the current zeitgeist. Of course, as you already know, trying to discern aggregate attitudes from hundreds of thousands of blog posts, Tweets, or Facebook profiles is no easy task. And what about the opinions of those who are least likely to participate in social media, primarily older and poorer Americans?
- Campaigning: The most obvious use of Social Media by elected officials isn't really governmental but private. Candidates are already using Web 2.0 for campaigning and fund raising. Many have noted the success Barack Obama has had raising money and fostering engagement with his supporters, and John McCain isn't far behind.
- Internal communications: Perhaps the greatest benefits to our government may come not from connecting with citizens but from allowing employees to better communicate and collaborate with each other. The use of internal blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 tools could certainly improve communications, help retain workers, and increase the efficiency of governmental agencies.
- Transparency and Third-Party Tools: Maybe the best our governmental bodies can do is to foster greater transparency by making data widely available and allowing private third parties to fashion the Web 2.0 tools that most interest citizens. Just a Govy includes a couple of interesting private sites that leverage government data for the use of citizens:
- CapitolWords shares the one word each day that is spoken most frequently in the House and Senate or inserted in the Congressional Record. As Scott points out on his blog, a word cloud would be much more informative, but this still is an interesting use of Federal data. (Lots of focus on "oil" and "energy" these days inside the Beltway, which should come as no surprise to anyone.)
- GovTrack.Us uses publicly available data to give site visitors access to the status of federal legislation and the ability to learn about the votes and activities of members of Congress.
What do you think? Are the rules, laws, and structure of our government simply not prepared to permit Social Media to be exploited? Do you believe government can change sufficiently to permit a more open and two-way dialog with citizens? Or is the government's use of Web 2.0 prevented by legislative firewalls that are appropriate and necessary to the operation of government?