Nov 27th, 2007 | Media 2.0, Social Media | No Comments
Kevin Nalts is a marketer who currently works for a Fortune 100 company as a consumer-product director, and moonlights as a YouTube comedian, one whose channel is in the top 10 in the comedy section, with more than 24,000 subscribers and over 1.2 million channel views. He also writes a blog called Will Video For Food.
Nalts wrote a column recently for Advertising Age in which he gave marketers some tips on using video and YouTube — a nice counterpoint to the recent piece by a “viral” marketer who wrote a post over at TechCrunch about how to manipulate your way to the front page of YouTube.
Sep 26th, 2007 | Media 2.0, Social Media | No Comments
I must admit, when I read that BudTV had gotten a reprieve and was going to have its lease extended to next year, my first response was: Why? The site, an attempt to create a Funny or Die-style comedy video destination, was so painfully lame — despite the estimated $20-million that went into setting it up and getting various artists to create content for it — that I thought it would be better to euthanize it, and put it out of its (and our) misery.
That was my first reaction. But Chris Albrecht at NewTeeVee has managed to convince me that BudTV should live on to fight another day. He makes a number of points, including the fact that Bud has spent a bunch of money on the site, and should give it a little longer to find its feet — and he also notes that people criticize large companies for not experimenting enough, taking risks, etc., and that we should cut BudTV some slack.
Good points, Chris. I’m going to give BudTV another chance. But at this point, they still mostly suck.
Jul 13th, 2007 | Media 2.0, Social Media | No Comments
It was a couple of days ago now, but Nat Torkington of O’Reilly had a great post about the kerfuffle (or was it a schlemozzle — or a brouhaha?) over Google’s Health blog and how the blogger in charge there took a run at Michael Moore’s movie Sicko in an attempt to sell the virtues of Google’s AdWords. If you’re interested in all of the back story, there’s a post at Search Engine Watch with details, and the blogger’s mea culpa is here.
Nat’s post (which I found via Media Influencer) does a great job of dissecting what went wrong with the Google post — and why that kind of thing is an endemic risk with corporate blogs:
“I feel sorry for Ms Turner, whose post has a painful logic to its existence. Blogs let you communicate directly with your audience. Of course, we’re too busy building product to communicate with our audience, so let’s hire a marketer to do it for us.”
What happens then, Nat says, is that the marketer tries to assume the voice of a blogger — that is, an authentic personal voice — but because what they are really trying to do is push an agenda, it all comes out pear-shaped:
“When inexperienced marketers get a blog, they all blog the same way. Their voice is as authentic as a Twinkie is organic.The time-honored marketing blog post formula is simple:
1. Find something topical. In Ms Turner’s case, it was the release of Michael Moore’s new film.
2. Identify the shiznit you wish to pimp. In Ms Turner’s case, it was Google’s Health Advertising services.
3. Find a line (however tenuous) between the two and the post just writes itself!”
Sadly, I have seen too many posts that fit that exact same formula. And it has the exact opposite effect as the one intended. Instead of making the company or the blogger in question look smart and clued-in, it makes the company and blogger in question look ridiculous and lame.
“So, to recap, the recipe for a disaster is easy: hire marketers with no authentic voice, ask them to pimp offal, and when they’re busted for it make them force out an apology in which they blame it on their authentic voice.
You too can make the front page of TechMeme for two days running with three easy steps, though you might get wet sleeves fishing your career prospects out of the toilet when you’re done. You’re welcome!”
Brilliant.
Jun 14th, 2007 | Media 2.0 | 1 Comment
From TVWeek comes this howler from former President Bill Clinton:
Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd of marketers, branders and media executives from around the country, former President Bill Clinton challenged the press to “render complex messages to audiences without turning them into two-dimensional cartoons” as the next election approaches.
Pot, meet kettle.
Apr 24th, 2007 | Media 2.0, Social Media | 1 Comment
Liz Gannes at GigaOm points to an interesting study done by MySpace about the value of “friending” as a marketing vehicle. It’s obvious that the survey of 3,000 Internet users was done primarily to justify the use of MySpace as an advertising and marketing tool, although the press release takes pains to point out (as they always do) that it was done by an independent firm, etc., etc.
The survey results were released, coincidentally enough, at a Fox Interactive Media event called “Never Ending Friending,” a conference for FIM marketing clients. In other words, the results should be taken with an industrial-sized bag of salt. After wading through a forest of typical press release verbiage — about things like the “Momentum Effect,” a new “metric” coined by one of the survey companies that is apparently right up there with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in importance — you get to the real money quote for marketers and advertisers, which is that:
“According to the study, more than 40% of all social networkers said they use social networking sites to learn more about brands or products that they like, and 28% said at some point a friend has recommended a brand or product to them.”
It’s not surprising that marketers are looking for ways of insinuating themselves into social networks such as MySpace (hopefully in somewhat more subtle ways than just creating profile pages for their lame mascots, like Burger King did), but what’s interesting to me is that 40 per cent of those surveyed said they use social networks to learn more about brands or products.
Is that statistic itself just marketing hype? Not according to Adidas, which found that its MySpace campaign for its soccer products “increased purchase intent 78 percent, brand image 71 percent and likelihood to recommend 57 percent.” Electronic Arts got a lot of bang for its buck too, says Forbes.
There are some other nuggets in the survey too, including one that might make TV advertisers sit up and take notice. The study says that social networking users spend 11 hours online per week compared to just 9.4 hours watching TV. And while heavy social network users still watch TV, 68 percent said their favorite time to visit social networks is during prime-time TV viewing hours.
