Category Archives: marketing

Marketing 2.0 – Is There Such a Thing?

Marketing 2 point 0

In my first marketing class, many years ago, I learned about the principles of marketing. What I remember most was that a marketer defined their marketing strategy around the 4Ps: product, price, promotion, and place.

As today’s marketers define brand positioning, value propositions, and go-to-market campaigns many say that marketing has changed. Things like automated media buying, social media, big data and digital and mobile technologies have changed the face of marketing. I contend that if these technological advances have changed your brand you merely have a facade on the face of your marketing. You are still trapped in the same marketing I learned about in graduate school.

There is a Marketing 2.0. Marketing 1.0 at the core is about defining your product or service in terms of the 4Ps. It is very “us” centric. Marketing 2.0 looks at the target market customer or client at that core. It is very “them” centric. Steve Jobs once said, “You’ve got to start with the customer experience and work back to the technology – not the other way around.” I would say the same thing except replace the word technology with the word marketing. “You’ve got to start with the customer experience and work back to the marketing – not the other way around.” Marketing is about winning the hearts and minds of targeted segments. You have to know your audience and have empathy for how they receive brand communication, advertisements, outcomes of PR, and how they get positive and negative information about your product or service.

Something struck a chord with me this week. I viewed an article/video this week that highlighted one of the panels at the Changing Media Summit on the topic of whether there was a reinvention of marketing. Whether it was fact or fiction. The panel was discussing whether marketing technology had changed the way we do marketing. A number of the marketing leaders on the panel talked about the way they were using new technology. In my view, only one panelist nailed the issue. Mark Evans, Direct Line Group said, “programmatic can get in front of the right people, potentially at the right time, but what it doesn’t have is the human intelligence and the storytelling ability to engage you with the right message.” This is the fundamental piece of Marketing 2.0. Human intelligence and empathy for your audience is the core of Marketing 2.0.

We talk about storytelling as if it is something new. Marketers have been telling stories about brands forever. Think about the Marlboro Man, Mr. Clean, and the Service Master Repairman. These are stories made up by advertisers. But are they true stories? Do they resonate with the audiences they attempt to attract? Do they show up in a manner that is acceptable to their audience or are they intrusive?

Customer and client behavior has changed because technology has allowed it to change. People can skip over ads and if not, they have conditioned themselves to ignore them. The way you get a brand message, awareness, consideration, loyalty, and advocacy through to your target audience is driven by their behavior. Not your brand agenda. This is what Marketing 2.0 recognizes and achieves.

So we go back to the title of this article … “Marketing 2.0 – Is There Such a Thing?” The answer to the question is yes … there is definitely a Marketing 2.0. But that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of marketers have evolved to a Marketing 2.0 mentality. Many are still stuck in a Marketing 1.0 mentality. Maybe the “new marketers” are using new marketing technologies, but if the approach is locked in a Marketing 1.0 mentality, they are not going to capture their target audience. Successful Marketing 2.0 must be driven by a customer/client centric approach. It is about them, not you.

Make It Happen,
Social Steve

9 Comments

Filed under brand marketing, brands, marketing, Social Steve, SocialSteve

Successful Marketing is a Matter of Trust

trust marketing

What are the brands you patronize and continually purchase? I’ll bet they are brands you respect and trust. Creative advertisements can get your attention, but if the brand generates unsubstantiated claims, their trust is lost. How many brands do you support and purchase that you do not trust?

Marketing is about winning over customers. If you accept this objective and goal then stop and think about your marketing activities. Is strategy based upon outlandish hype, sizzle, and claims, or are you really understanding your target audience and developing communications and establishing engagement to build relationships and win trust? Fewer than 25% of U.S. online consumers trust ads in print publications, and the numbers are even worse for digital media. (Source) 84 percent of millennials not only don’t like traditional advertising, but even more importantly, they don’t trust it. (Source)

Trust-based marketing focuses on customer advocacy tactics that help the target audience make informed purchase decisions based on knowledge of marketplace options and objective advice.

Now I am not saying that creativity does not play an imperative role in marketing. Creativity is paramount. But creativity aimed at trust is much more productive and rewarding than Super Bowl – like sensationalism. People have a great appetite for relationships with entities they understand and trust. Brands need to have empathy and understand this emotion in order to win the heart and minds of consumers.

So how do you build trust? Here are ten ways …

1. Develop marketing activities that aim to win the relationship. Not win the sale. If you succeed in winning a strong relationship, you will not only win the sale, but win an advocate as well.

2. Make promises you can and WILL keep.

3. Work to get your clients and customers to vouch for you.

4. Consider corporate social responsibility and adopt a cause.

5. Commit to and develop clear and straightforward content. Include facts and customer anecdotes.

6. Allow customers to post reviews and don’t vet the reviews.

7. When you make errors, be honest and admit your mistake.

8. Develop, maintain, and demonstrate your brand personality. Highlight people behind the scenes.

9. Promote earned media that validates your brand.

10. Respond promptly to questions directed to you and those that mention your brand in social spaces and digital spaces.

If you do all these things first and foremost, then sprinkle some creative dust on top of your operations. Far too often, brands start with a creative direction and go from there. Then end up producing something that is aesthetically impressive, but lacks brand realism and is disjointed from the brand personality. Work your trust issues first. I guarantee you will see winning marketing results.

Make It Happen!
Social Steve

Leave a comment

Filed under ads, behavior, brand marketing, marketing, Social Steve, SocialSteve, TV ads

Storytelling Must Be In-Line with Brand Persona

Everyone is talking about storytelling like it is the Messiah for marketing. Actually, I think it is pretty important. Not the Messiah, but definitely a very important part of a brand’s marketing mix. But here’s the question no one has really put on the table. What if the brand story is fiction rather than non-fiction? Or to be a bit more direct, what if the stories the brand produces have nothing to do with the brand value proposition or the brand’s persona?

I bring up the question of brand storytelling alignment with what the brand stands for in light of a recent marketing campaign by McDonald’s. Rick Ferguson did an excellent job capturing “The Danger of McStorytelling.” He highlights McDonald’s “Signs” commercial and its debacle. The ads show McDonald’s Golden arch signs with caring messages rooted in the community.

McDonalds Signs

McDonald’s attempts to show a soft side by trying to say “At McDonald’s, we care. We’re more than just purveyors of empty calories; we’re a part of your community, too.” Seems nice and compelling like motherhood and apple pie. And while there are questions whether the signs are fictitious or not (Photoshop can do wonders), the real issue is that the campaign and story is totally out of line with McDonald’s value proposition and brand persona. People do not believe that McDonald’s cares as much as the signs display. It does not fit their personality. It is outside of the value proposition they deliver to their market. And thus, the public used digital and social platforms to create an uproar and protest.

There are a number of other brands that have failed in the same vein. I know this seems a bit twisted, but even though storytelling is a strong marketing ploy, you cannot just tell stories. Your stories must synch with your brand position and persona.

In an article I wrote back in 2010 “Marketing Leadership (with a hint of Social Media)”, I talked about the need for having a position statement defined. The positioning statement template looks like this:

• For …………….………… [target customer]
• Who ……………….……. [key qualifier – form]
• Our product is a ….. [product category]
• That provides ………. [key benefit]
• Unlike ………………….. [main competitor]
• Our product ……….… [key point of differentiation]

I stated, “The formation of the positioning statement is done to know exactly who you are.” I later go on to explain that all marketing communication should be tested against the positioning statement to make sure the brand persona is reinforced or at least not in opposition to what the brand value is.

Some think that taking time to define their positioning statement is just an academic exercise. But when we look at marketing campaigns like the McDonald’s campaign above, you got to wonder if “creative marketing leaders” really understand some fundamentals of successful marketing.

You should start with defining the brand position at a minimum. But I think you should take it a step further. What does your brand stand for? What is the …

• Brand vision
• Brand promise
• Brand personality

Define these. Make pretend your brand is a person. What would that person’s characteristics be? When you have this in place you are ready to do your marketing. Then you are ready to do some storytelling (among other activities).

If you just go ahead and produce a creative campaign without making sure it is in line with your brand persona, you end up getting egg on your face. Or is that Egg McMuffin on your face.

Be smart. Start with the basics before you get creative.

Make It Happen!
Social Steve

2 Comments

Filed under brand communication, brand marketing, brand trust, brands, marketing, marketing plan, Social Steve, SocialSteve

A Brutally Honest Discussion About the Responsibilities of Sales and Marketing

sales and marketing

How integrated are sales and marketing? They should be tightly integrated because marketing should tee up sales – right? What are the performance objectives for sales executives? Marketing executives? Well for sales executives, that is pretty easy – sales and margin. For marketing executives, that is not quite an easy answer. We could say brand awareness, lead generation, loyalty, and advocacy. But at the end of the day (or quarter) most CEOs judge their marketing executives’ performance on sales.

Now on one hand this makes sense. A company survives on profit from sales. All marketing efforts, if successful, should result in sales. But here is the rub … the functions of marketing are different than sales. And more importantly, customers and clients do not want to be blatantly sold to. They want to develop trust and relationships with the brands they purchase.

So let’s go back to sales objectives and marketing objectives. The sales executive has one simple job function – close the sale. Marketers’ job functions are different. They need to build awareness, interest, buzz, reputation, and overall an awesome customer/client experience with the brand. If we agree that marketers need to build trust and win over customers to build solid relationships, can’t that relationship be hurt if the target audience feels like they are being sold to? And if at the end of the day the marketer’s success and future with their company is going to be judged by sales, are we not creating a dilemma? Not just a dilemma for the marketer, but a potential problem for the customer as well?

As I said, this is an honest discussion with no simple answer. But I suggest that we need to change the objectives of marketers. My suggestion is not driven by a desire to ease the responsibilities of marketers, but is driven by the target audience behavior that marketers serve. The audience does not want to be sold to and at the same time they want to believe in the brands they purchase. And from the company perspective they need sales to survive.

If we look at the sales marketing funnel, most consumers traverse from awareness to consideration to sale to post-sale loyalty and then advocacy. Can we agree that the four phases besides sales (awareness, consideration, loyalty, and advocacy) tee up sales? If so, let a marketer’s function and responsibility be teeing up sales and a sales executive be responsible for closing the sale. Measure marketers on awareness consideration, loyalty, and advocacy and not hold them responsible for sales. Is this distinction possible?

I believe the digital world has put much power in the hands of consumers and clients. They can get more information then ever before. They can share their opinion to a large audience and their news travels fast. Behaviors as a result of digital technologies create the case for truly separating marketing and sales objectives.

Here is an interesting analog … For a long time, The New York Yankees were blessed with having Mariano Rivera as the relief pitcher that would be put in at the end of a game to seal a win for the team. It did not matter if the starting pitcher was having an amazing outing. If the starting pitcher had a big lead. The Yankees’ manager would put Rivera in to close the deal. The Yankees had great “tee-er-uppers” and a superb closer. Metaphorically speaking, marketers are starting pitchers. They get momentum and set up the win for the closer. Sales executives come in in the late innings and seal the deal/win.

Yes, I know sales/marketing objectives are a complicated issue, but I think I have rationalized the need for change now. Many have talked about this for many years. Social and digital technologies have really created the customer/client behavior to drive a need for change now. Please add your voice and opinion to this vital topic.

Make It Happen!
Social Steve

6 Comments

Filed under marketing, sales, Social Steve, SocialSteve

Greater Marketing Innovation In-House or Out-of-House? It is One Tough Question

inhouse - out-of-house

If you have been to The SocialSteve Blog before, you know I am extremely committed to providing marketing guidance and tips to help you in your professional success. But this blog post is different. I ask more questions than providing answers. I hope the questions that I raise make you think, rethink, and consider how we can drive much greater successes in the organizations we lead, manage, and work for.

So the question as stated in the title is whether there is greater marketing innovation that comes from outside consultants, agencies, and third party partners than in-house marketers? And based upon my experience as a current business marketing strategist and having worked in a digital marketing agency, I would say the resounding answer is yes. But I am not satisfied with my own experience. I have had discussions with a number of people to get their views. I have spoken to CMOs of Fortune 500 companies and much smaller companies. I have spoken to professionals that have graduated Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, other top and mid tier colleges and universities. I have spoken to high-level marketing and business development folks in leading sports, entertainment, retail, B2B, consumer goods, and other business. And yes, I have spoken to some very smart and talented people that have so much to offer but are untapped.

So granted, I have not done a scientific experiment, but I have gone much further than my own personal experience to get a perspective on the question, and further more, an explanation for the answer. And clearly most people agree … there is much greater innovation coming from outsiders than insiders when it comes to marketing. But is this to say that there is better talent in marketing consultants than client side markets? Absolutely not! So what is the issue?

I believe that existing organizations have rules (both formal and informal) that stifle creativity and innovation. Employees have set mandates and protocol they are expected to adhere to. Not that outside consultants have carte-blanche freedom to do whatever they want and are not held to specific tasks and guidelines, but they are not faced with the same rigor and formalities that often hamper innovation.

Now I am speaking as a consultant and so it may be difficult to say, but there is no reason why in-house marketing strategists, planners, and implementers should not be able to deliver the high-quality, highly impactful work of out of house marketers. I believe it is time for established organizations to look at their culture and reassess. I do believe that many start-ups have environments that promote and motivate creativity and innovation, but somewhere along the way businesses often loose this mentality and persona.

As a successful marketer, I find the need to constantly adapt and be agile as my environment and playing field evolve. Heck, I was around before there was any digital marketing, and now I would say a majority of my work, experience, and deliverables are in the area of digital marketing. So if successful marketers must demonstrate agility and evolution to continue to be successful, doesn’t the organizational environment where they practice their trade need to also morph?

As I said in the beginning – I am asking more questions than providing guidance in this post. I believe I have hit upon a couple issues – 1) Greater marketing innovation out-of-house, and 2) An in-house environment that clamps creativity and innovation. But I am not emphatically saying this is the case. My experience and initial investigation has led me to my conclusions. Go ahead. Tell me I am wrong. Give me your perspective. I want to learn from your experience.

Make It Happen,
Social Steve

Leave a comment

Filed under brand marketing, company organization, marketing, Social Steve, SocialSteve

Marketers in a Time Warp

Groundhog Day – one of the most important holidays of the year. Okay, maybe not. But forget the holiday for a minute and think about the stellar comedic movie “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray. Murray plays Phil Connors, a TV meteorologist, covering the Groundhog Day festivities in Punxsutawney, PA. He is stuck in a time warp reliving February 2nd everyday he wakes up. Nothing changes. Eventually, he uses the repeating scenario to learn. He takes time to understand the people he encounters day in and day out. He reexamines his life and recognizes flaws. Finally he makes changes as a result of learning and evaluating what he has done well and not. And then magic happens … he moves forward with a new outlook on life. He finds happiness and success as the calendar finally turns over a new day.

Hopefully you see where I am going with this. Some marketers are looking at their audience and learning how to appeal to them. But still there are an abundance of marketers stuck in their old ways and they cannot get out of a rut.

groundhog day

This past week, I read a very interesting article titled “The Evolution of Marketing & the Future Retail Model.” The article examined consumers changing behavior (driven by the millennial segment) as it relates to shopping habits and the retail stores landscape. The way people shop (B2C) and make purchase orders (B2B) has changed significantly as I captured in the article, “The Dramatic and Fundamental Change in Marketing and What You Need to Do.” And for the first time I can remember, marketers are lagging consumers/clients. In the past, marketers drove purchase behaviors and audiences reacted. Today, people are driving purchase behaviors and marketers (for the most part) are not reacting quickly enough to their shifting actions.

We have seen too many examples of industries staying stagnant while their audience behavior and actions change. Take the music industry. The record industry did not change its distribution model in the face of digital streaming and downloadable music fast enough. New music distribution companies have emerged and have won over consumers. Another example is the print media industry. I lived it as I found magazine brands acting like a deer in headlights to the emergence of user preferences moving to digital content. Are shopping malls on a dead end street as discussed in the referenced retail article? How much did online purchases grow year over year for holiday shopping? The flags are up.

Yes, digital technology has spawned significant behavioral changes. Old school advertorial interruption used on TV, radio, and print does not work in digital media. Marketers cannot take their old methods and approaches to digital. If so, they are just stuck in an inadequate time warp of misery as Phil Connors was stuck in Groundhog Day. Marketers need to observe and understand their audiences’ behavior in order to get out of a rut of poor results.

Do yourself a favor. Watch Groundhog Day and determine how the movie is a metaphor for your marketing efforts. Don’t just wing it and do what you have always done. Learn, adjust, and move forward with happiness and success.

Make It Happen,
Social Steve

PS – If you think I am wrong about the stagnation of marketers, please share some innovative, audience driven examples. I would love to hear about your success or other brands you think standout as role models.

1 Comment

Filed under behavior, brand marketing, change management, digital media, marketing, Social Steve, SocialSteve

Marketers – Be There When I Need You

marketer helpWhy do marketers engage on social platforms? Why do marketers invest in content marketing? What does it mean for a brand to be interactive? There is an abundance of brand social presence. Why would anyone care?

The answer to these questions and rationalization for brand participation takes on numerous explanations. But there really is only one solid reason why brands should devote time and money. Brand marketers need to be ever present and interactive with their target audience because the existing and potential customer base need their help and assistance.

The emergence of digital technologies allows brands to have a voice that travels wider and faster then traditional media advertisement. But the mere fact that a brand can use digital to reach out is not a reason to do so. Simply throwing up content and posts in blogs, media channels, and social platforms are not only useless, but may be counterproductive as well. You may in fact turn off your audience by producing content they do not want to hear and value.

The magic of digital marketing is sharing something that your audience wants or needs at the right time they are looking for it. So how can you be sure you are accomplishing this?

It starts by listening; not talking. Know the sentiment and heartbeat of your audience. In the past year buzz words like real-time marketing and contextual content have been thrown about. But if you really deliver information that makes sense to your audience based upon their needs, desires, purchase history, and challenges in a timely manner, you are addressing their necessities. That is what it means to have successful real-time marketing and contextual content.

The next step after listening is engaging. Have conversations. Learn more. Build a relationship such that your audience begins to open up to you. If you build trust, your audience will tell you exactly what they want. If you have this information in your pocket, your marketing becomes easy. There is no guesswork.

Back in 2011, I wrote an article “The Most Important Word for Marketing.” The answer was and still is empathy. If you have any empathy for today’s consumer and business professionals, you know they do not like to be interrupted with blatant hard sells. As a consumer, don’t you hate pop up ads on the Internet? How many still watch live TV and actually listen to the ads (besides the Super Bowl)? How many of you on LinkedIn, get a request to connect, and then the first thing they do after you accept the connection is email you a letter offering to increase your leads? This is a complete turn off and no trust is ever won.

Digital technologies and its ubiquitous use allow us to communicate with just about anyone. But beware. Do not abuse this privilege. Don’t interrupt people in your marketing efforts. I don’t care if your responsibility is content marketing, social marketing, interactive marketing, inbound marketing, digital marketing, online marketing, real-time marketing or whatever your title means. If you want to capture an audience, you better know them and deliver to their needs. A brand that espouses their agenda fails. A brand that delivers what their audience needs wins.

Listen. Understand. Know. Deliver.

Make It Happen!
Social Steve

Leave a comment

Filed under brand marketing, content marketing, digital media, marketing, social marketing, Social Steve, SocialSteve