Elastic Thought

Elastic Marketing - It's more than you think

 We've all heard what is wrong with marketing and advertising.  From what I gather at most conferences, blog posts, and industry quips, it needs to be more interactive.  It needs to be engaging.  I think they also say it needs to be more social, and a few other things I can't remember now.  It all jumbles together at this point.  What's funny is that you never hear someone actually say that it just needs to be good.

And it needs to be found.  There are so many ways for people to bury communications methods these days that the big industry money maker this year is going to be promoting promotions.  Really, it is.  Advertising for advertisements….  Really.

So look out for the great new buzz terms: "viral seeding" along with "tradigital" and "increasing visibility of your program."  While they seem rational enough terms (well, except for tradigital), make sure they aren't adding to the budget to push something that won't fly in the first place.

Now, we get asked a lot about Elastic Marketing.  As an agency, we're often dubbed a "hybrid" agency that sits somewhere in the middle of a Ven diagram with overlapping circles of advertising, PR, and social media (and I guess digital gets thrown in there too).  And we do our fair share of ridiculing the status quo in our pitches, so it's only fair that we share what it is we do a little more here online.

A recent client was ecstatic when he "figured it out."  He said we were "like an episodic, story-based sitcom" that "played itself out online and offline."  And I have to say, that's pretty accurate in some measures.  In a way, it's a more modern version of the soap opera.

I may have to explain that a bit here.  Wikipedia defines a soap opera as "an ongoing, episodic work of dramatic fiction presented in serial format on television or radio.  The name 'soap opera' stems from the original dramatic serials broadcast on radio that had soap manufacturers such as Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Lever Brothers as sponsors and producers."

Now, we're not into dramatic fiction, and we certainly aren't television producers.  What we do is episodic, but those "episodes" aren't necessarily in chronological order and most likely play out on a multitude of channels.  Rather, our storyline is something that organically plays to a specific cause.  Say, for example, bringing the mustache back into popular culture.  That may include blog outreach, traditional PR, event marketing, and advertising.  And it's not something that goes away after a short run on TV.  This particular example has been going on for over 4 years.

So does your company want to change the status quo?  It may be something as simple as getting people to eat more potatoes.  It may be getting you to understand and appreciate rail liquor.  Hell, it may be to grow a luxurious mullet.  Whatever it is, there are a series of episodic events online and offline that can better get your program goals into the popular vernacular.  To actually get people to care about what it is you are doing.

And that is where Elastic Marketing comes into play.  We get that snowball rolling downhill.  We get the mullet talked about and have it show up where audiences actually care to hear about it.  People start talking more about potatoes and celebrating rail liquor.  And not because we virally seeded the campaign, but because people actually sought it out and cared to listen.  That's Elastic Marketing.

(none of the above examples relate to any past or current client we are actively working with.  any resemblance to anybody in any close approximation with mullets, rail liquor and potatoes is purely coincidental.  and if you know of anyone in any close approximation to monkeys, mullets, mustaches, Mr. T or wee people, please contact us immediately)

Agency of the Decade

Last week an old colleague of ours trumpeted on Facebook that the agency he works for was named "Agency of the Decade" …. again.  Aside from the fact that he doesn't work for Edelman it struck me as odd that this would be something to boast about.  Especially from a Public Relations company tasked with forming "relationships" between the companies that pay them and the publics they speak to.

A little background, first.  (and this is not meant to be a depressing, doomsday post -- stick with it).  A quick Google search for "job growth in the last decade" will bring up multiple versions of the same headline.  Here are a few:

• "Off the Charts -Job Growth Lacking in the Private Sector" - NY Times
• "Lost Decade for Job Growth" - MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal)
• "A Lost Decade for Jobs" - BusinessWeek

In summary, at no other time since the depression have we added 0 jobs in a 10-year period.  (actually, we lost over 200K)

Add to that the fact that salaries have remained stagnant in the last decade as well.  College reports indicate that starting salaries have remained constant, or if they grew, grew slower than inflation.  (if you are doing the math on your own salary, keep in mind that you would have to have a 25-30% increase over the past 10 years to keep up).  NPR has been reporting similar stories that most Americans have seen little to no growth in their compensation over the past 10 years, as well as other media outlets.

But you can't blame a PR company for the economy, right?

Let's look at a different trend--social media.  Many attribute the beginnings of social media to the Cluetrain Manifesto.  An excerpt:

"Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do."

And these companies often made use of one of the best humorless, monotone generators there is: the PR firm.  A humorous look:

They say that behind every great joke lies a foundation of truth.  And the truth is that social media is a rebellion against corporate speak.  A statement, a movement that says "stop talking to us through the inhuman tones written by your marketing group, your corporate communications group, and especially…your PR company.  talk to us like human beings.  And for once, just tell us the truth."

Oh, and one more thing.  Have you had a conversation lately about customer service?  I don't think you need a link to a NY Times article to know that customer relations is worse than it's ever been.

Let me repeat that.  At no other time has the relationship between the public and the companies they/we deal with on a daily basis ever been worse.

So why would a company that makes its business on forming "relationships" between companies and the public boast about being the "Agency of the Decade?"   Why would there even be such an award this decade?  A decade where everything from jobs, to salaries, to general disdain for the American public has had such low performance?  In a time when the fastest growing movement (social media) stemmed from wanting to put an end to the PR dribble companies and agencies were spitting out?

If there was to be an "anything" of the decade as it relates to actual public relations, it would have to go the many early adopters of social media.  it would go to the founders of Facebook, and MySpace, and Twitter, and YouTube, and LinkedIn and countless other social media enabling sites.  NOT some public, conglomerate-held PR agency that won the award based on billings growth.  It was social media that actually began to improve the relationships between companies and public.  And will continue to do so.

So… agency of the decade?  It's kind of like the Biggest Loser, only you are not healthier after winning the award.

Cutting Out the Middle Man

Ad Age just released a piece asking if the industry needed big digital agencies anymore. It ended with a  quote from Seth Solomons, CMO for Digitas:  "I think big, costly and slow is not something clients are looking for."

There is an interesting sub-text in the article that is even more interesting.  Beyond the easy attack of large agencies being slow to maneuver (It's hard to steer the Titanic), there is the other context of sub-contracting.  Most of the time we hear it as a partnership, but it tends to be a vendor relationship at best.  The rationale behind this is actually something quite funny.  Ever heard this before: "I know enough to be dangerous and can handle the meeting, but I bring the real experts in when needed?"

That statement has evolved into a business model for a lot of agencies.  Hiring the general contractor (so to speak) to breeze through a client meeting, and bring in the experts to do the plumbing, electrical work, etc.  Not a bad model if you're building a house.  But this model doesn't work for digital marketing.  And here's why--a general contractor is great to execute on the architectural plans that have been made for them.  Going with the general contractor as your agency assures you that the strategy (the blueprints) will be mediocre at best.  Just enough to be dangerous.

Where does this leave those agencies, then? They are becoming middle-men.  And what's interesting about being a middle-man in digital marketing is that digital is all about removing the middle-man.  The technology is there to allow for 1-1 conversations, to allow for savvy architects to handle the multiple experts, to give the tools and crowdsourcing to make the general contractor irrelevant.

And let's not mention that the world of digital moves so fast that it would be like completely re-learning plumbing every other month.

So can you blame the big brands of the world from going straight to the smart agencies?  Cutting out that guy that knows just enough in the client meeting to bringing in the real expert?  It's an added layer (read: expense) that they don't need any more.

What they need is a smart architectural firm.  An agency that knows the intricacies, all the ins and outs, and how it all comes together into one picture.  Someone that says "I know enough to make this program sing and will make the meeting really productive and efficient."

I envision those firms then outsourcing (I mean partnering) with the larger agencies to knock out the production.  It's puts the current model on it's head.  But it's so crazy it just might work.

Now to find a good general contractor to help us pull the whole thing off....

Intestine-Based Decision-Making

In the pilot episode of the political satire program "The Colbert Report," the term Truthiness was unveiled by Stephen Colbert and was used to describe "things that a person claims to know intuitively or from the gut without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

There is a long background to this term, but it is the "gut feel" that I'm curious about right now.  Where it was maligned in earlier criticism of former President George W Bush, and then reiterated from the New York Times to Canadian Parliament, it seems to be gaining in popularity.  And most often in the social media field right now.

After hearing a Southwest Airlines presentation on social media, the question was asked about what tools they use to monitor, gauge trends, measure, and qualify conversations to join and which to avoid, and general research practices.  The answer?  Roughly "gut feel."  Actually, it's more like "when you are participating in the space, you have a general feel for what is going on and you can generally tell what needs to be done and where to go."  (paraphrased)  And if it weren't for the 4 or 5 other Fortune 500 companies that have responded in the same manner within the last month or so to the same question, I would have let it go at that.  From podcasts, to presentations, to blog posts, they are heralding the intuitive properties of some of their youngest employees guts.  (maybe because they are in better shape than some of the older ones?)

But why gut feel?  Why would these companies not want further evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or other means of quantifying this field that is becoming more and more important to brand perception, company reputation, and purchase decision/behavior?  Marketers for years have used data from focus groups, point of purchase data and a myriad of psychological data to hone their craft.  Yet with social media, Fortune 500 companies are letting their online reputation be managed by gut feel.  And in some cases, those guts have only been out of college as long as social media has been around.  Barely enough time to truly understand the company's many efforts in other channels, or understanding of crisis communications, corporate reputation as a practice, or otherwise.

But they know how to use Facebook and Twitter.

Now, I'll grant you that I learned a lot from Malcolm Gladwell in Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking but I'm not sure he was promoting "gut feel."  He does argue that "intuitive judgment is developed by experience, training, and knowledge."  And granted, with the immediate nature of the online world, there will need to be some gut calls made in response.

But to publicly celebrate gut feel?  To eschew intellectual examination?  I'm not sure if that is truly what is best for the companies, their online presence or the practice of social media.  I still remember the episode of "The Office" where Michael drives his car into a lake because that's what the GPS told him to do.  Perhaps a combination of technology, tools AND gut feel will be the answer.

Until then, I look forward to a representative from one of these Fortune 500 companies that explains the intellectual side of their thought out, reasoned, and evidence-based plan.  As much as I like Stephen Colbert, I hope that the practice of Social Media or it's "best practices" are not shrouded in truthiness and that those that learn from these presentations do not go away thinking that they, too, can manage their company's online reputation on gut feel.

Illustration: Timo Elliott

Study: Online Reputation Affects Click-Through-Rate

A few weeks back there was a new report that was written dubbed "ENGAGEMENTdb" that looked a little further into social media participation.  We've been watching this closely as we often time include engagement as one of our metrics we watch for our clients as opposed to simply breadth (how many boxes can you check off the social media list to say your are doing them?)

To quote a summary: "What makes this report even more interesting is the correlation of engagement and financial performance. The analysis groups each brand with the greatest depth and breadth into a category titled “Social Media Mavens”. On average, those who were classified as “Social Media Mavens” grew 18% in revenue over the last 12 months. On the other hand, the companies who were least engaged with consumers on the social web unfortunately suffered an average of 6% decline in revenue."  (credit: Altimeter Group)

This obviously is a great story to tout to our clients to show not only social media's relationship to the bottom line, but to emphasize the need to actually use the tools you/they spent money building.  It reinforces the participatory part of social media and the payoffs that can come from it.

However, we want to put forth a corollary finding that we are actively pursuing.  If your clients are anything like ours, social media is just part of the mix.  You are playing alongside email marketing, banner advertising, pay-per-click, paid sponsorships/links and other channels that get measured with the click-through-rate (CTR) percentage.  What we've learned through these programs is that the higher the overall "sentiment" is for the company, the greater the CTR.

To repeat:  the more engagement there is online, and the more that engagement is positive in nature, the more likely people are to engage with other digital marketing tactics (i.e. click through to the company's target location).

This makes logical sense to us.  If you dislike a brand, you will be less likely to click through one of their other online advertising properties.  On the contrary, if you are neutral to positive about a brand, you are more likely to click through.  Now, we are not diving into the waters of words/colors/message and placement where a purchaser is more likely to purchase.  We're simply making a connection from sentiment to CTR.  And depending on what type of agency you are, this could either make you a great parter to the other agencies in the mix for your clients, or improve your own digital marketing tactics if you have them all under one roof.

But this outlines how important reputation online becomes.  And it brings the "online reputation management" discussion out of the the confines of corporate communications, and broadens that internal discussion to marketing and other areas within the company.

Admittedly, we have a small sample base right now.  Companies and marketers are not likely to publish their CTR percentages, so we've relied on our own experience, clients, experiments and those of our friends in the industry.  If you have access to CTR percentages, or if you've found similar results, we welcome your comments here.  Together, we can put together the next "big" finding in social media and it's importance in the world of communications.