marketing communications

Boston Consulting Group predicts “the end of consumer marketing as we have long known it.”

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boston Consulting Group recently conducted a survey of American consumers to see how their spending habits and approach to brands differs by age group.

Millennials GenXers Baby BoomersThe results give us a quantifiable measure of the differences in outlook between three major age groups:  Millennials (age 18 to 34), Gen-Xers (age 35 to 49), and Baby Boomers and older consumers (age 50 and up).

The survey findings led BCG researchers to declare that Millennials’ perspectives are characterized by a “reciprocity principle.”  By this, they mean that these younger consumers expect “mutual relationships” with companies and their brands.

This isn’t so very surprising considering the ability of the Internet and social media platforms to provide an easy platform for airing their opinions.

A positive brand experience may prompt consumers to take favorable “public” action on behalf of the brand.

A disappointing experience most assuredly will prompt vocal criticism via product or service reviews, social media, blog posts, and leaving comments.

digital-multitaskingAnd the juicier the commentary, the more likely it is to go viral.

The BCG survey found that younger consumers are far more prone to participate in the world of “reciprocity.”

The differences were pretty dramatic when asking respondents in the different age groups whether they agreed with certain statements:

“Brands identify who I am, and my values.”

  • Millennials:  ~44% agree
  • Gen-Xers:  ~38%
  • Boomers and older:  ~33%

“People seek me for knowledge and brand opinion.”

  • Millennials:  ~51% agree
  • Gen-Xers:  ~42%
  • Boomers and older:  ~34%

“I’m willing to share my brand preferences online or on social media.”

  • Millennials:  ~55% agree
  • Gen-Xers:  ~43%
  • Boomers and older:  ~28%

Evaluating the survey findings, the BCG report posits that Millennials are “the leading indicators of large-scale changes in consumer behavior.”

Rather dramatically, BCG also concludes that this particular generational transition is “ushering in the end of consumer marketing as we have long known it,” and that the linear framework companies have used for decades to manage brand image and engagement is headed out the window.

“… Marketers must embrace the reality that marketing is an ecosystem of multidirectional engagement rather than a process that is controlled and pushed by the company,” the BCG report states.

My personal view is that the Boston Consulting Group’s conclusions are probably on-target … but the question is the degree.

I don’t think many major brands are going to simply cede control of their marketing and messaging to the cyberspace or the social cloud.  They’ve worked too long and too hard on their brand image and identity to give up that easily.

For more on the survey findings and conclusions, here’s BCG’s summary article.

Take Your Pick: One Super Bowl Ad Spot … or 14 Billion Facebook Ad Impressions

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Super Bowl Ad Cost

 

This year a single 30-second ad spot during the Super Bowl TV broadcast will cost a cool $4 million.

And that’s just for the placement alone — not the dollars that go into producing the ad.

The high cost of advertising is directly related to Super Bowl viewership, of course, which is predicted to be north of 100 million people this year.

Still, $4 million is a really hefty sum, even for major brand advertisers.  Just how big is underscored in some comparative figures put together by Jack Marshall, a reporter at marketing e-zine Digiday.

Jack Marshall
Digiday’s Jack Marshall

In lieu of spending $4 million on a single ad spot, here’s how Marshall reported that the promotional money could be spent in alternative ways:

  • 14 billion Facebook Ad Impressions – According to digital marketing software firm Kenshoo, right-hand column “marketplace” ads on Facebook averaged 27 cents per thousand impressions during 2013.  This means that for $4 million, an advertiser could run a Facebook marketplace ad every second of every day for the next 469 years.
  • 3 billion Banner Ad Impressions – In 2013, average online display ad CPMs were running just shy of $1.30, looking globally.  Applying that figure to the U.S. market translates into 3 billion display ad impressions for your $4 million spend.
  • 160 million Sponsored Content Views – The typical charge is ~$25 to distribute sponsored content to 1,000 readers.  At that rate, $4 million would give you 160 million impressions (provided a publisher could actually deliver that many!).
  • 10.8 million Paid Search Clicks – With an overall average cost-per-click of 37 cents in 2013, $4 million would cover just shy of 11 million clicks.  That may be one-tenth the size of the Super Bowl viewing audience … but at least your audience would be actually searching for your product or service instead of heading to the kitchen for more corn chips and queso dip.

These are just some of the comparative figures outlined by Jack Marshall in his article.  You can read the others here.

SoLoMo: The Newest Buzz Term in Marketing Communications

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

solomoEvery few years or so, we start hearing a pithy (and sometimes obnoxious) new buzz term in marketing communications.

The most recent entry into the lexicon is SoLoMo – a cutesy amalgam of three terms:  Social Media, Location, and Mobile Devices.

SoLoMo purports to convey the convergence of these three elements into a powerful new driver for marketing:  sparking audience engagement and brand usage via the use of social media, and targeting consumers via their mobile devices when they are locationally proximate.

businesspersonBeyond the inevitable “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” aspects of this term and the “oh-so relevant” connotation it has for those who choose to name-drop it in casual conversation, another drawback I see is the term’s emphasis on tactics rather than on the true meaning of today’s always-connected customers and the potential this offers for relationship-building.

Right now, there are more than a few company and brand marketers who are trying to figure out the best way to have their customers do all sorts of things that will benefit a product’s acceptance and position in the market — things like checking in to a physical location, then taking a mobile picture and uploading it to an Instagram or Facebook page.

This over-reliance on “shiny new object tactics” is what gets marketers to the same place as designing a new and novel app that doesn’t actually fill a true need – and hence becomes an inglorious failure.

Here’s what’s actually going on with consumers today:

  • They have more digital connections available to them than ever before.
  • Because of the pervasiveness of interactivity, consumers expect information to be available to them at any time – and on any device.

The good news is that marketers can establish just these sorts of connections with consumers, simply by using the very same social platforms.  The bigger challenge is making those connections meaningful and relevant.  That’s where effectiveness so often falls by the roadside.

Social media is an “ism” to many marketers … whereas to regular people, they hardly think of it that way.  For them, it’s just another way to engage in their relationships with friends, acquaintances, industry colleagues, fellow hobbyist … and favorite brands.  Other than the digital aspect of the communication, there’s really very little difference from the connections people have established and maintained for years the old-fashioned way.

Location is much more than simply where someone happens to be.  It’s the context of understanding when — and what — the person is doing at or near that location.  Knowing that makes for a more relevant – and potentially profitable — interactions.

Today’s focus on Mobile everything has become almost as myopic as marketers’ tunnel-focus on desktops was a few years back.  Today, we’re dealing with consumers who are perpetually connected.  As for which device, it simply depends on what’s handy at the moment – desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones.  So, strategies and tactics that focus on one or two of these to the exclusion of the others will fall short of the mark.

While we can give an acknowledging nod to the SoLoMo buzz term, the key is to recognize that it’s actually about today’s perpetually connected consumers — and all of the expectations that come along with that.

In other words, marketers need to be people-focused … but tactics-agnostic.

More on Mobile Apps Marketing: Acquisition Costs are Higher than Ever

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

Mobile appsRight after publishing my blog post about the high attrition rates of mobile app usage, I heard from one of my loyal readers about another interesting development on the app front.

Now that there are millions of mobile apps being offered to consumers, it’s becoming much more costly for developers to market new ones to their mobile audiences.

Fiksu, a mobile app marketing firm, reports that the cost to acquire a “loyal app user” – that is, a person who opens an app three or more times – increased by nearly a third in 2012.

According to Fiksu, the average acquisition cost for a loyal user is now $1.62, compared to $1.30 in 2011.

This isn’t to say that app downloads have declined as a result.  Quite the contrary:  They achieved record-breaking volume in 2012.  But the growth rate has been slowing, in part due the larger download basis.

As for the implications raising costs and higher competition for the consumer’s attention, Sarah Perez of TechCrunch warns that “… in 2014, we might see more of the newer, younger companies trying darker shades of ‘growth hacking’ as a way to find initial traction.

Twitter’s “Potemkin Village Problem” Isn’t Getting Any Better

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

“Millions of fake accounts dog Twitter.”

“Twitter dogged by bogus accounts.”

social-media-inflated-statsI’ve blogged before about the scads of Twitter accounts that are accounts in name only.

It’s been a problem for years.

But now, it takes on even greater significance as the market valuation of Twitter is being measured in the tens of billions as the company issues publicly traded stock in its IPO.

To this end, I found a recent Wall Street Journal article penned by technology reporter Jeff Elder particularly interesting in that it pulls together various pieces of evidence that have been building … and which together showcase the extent of Twitter’s “Potemkin Village” problem.  (Note the headlines from this article displayed above.)

Essentially, the problem is a plethora of “faux” Twitter accounts being created by an underground network of sellers – including 20 or so major operations scattered around the world – that then offer these accounts for sale to companies and brands wishing to “juice” their Twitter follower statistics to appear more consequential than they actually are.

Consider these points from Mr. Elder’s article:

  • Faux accounts abound on Twitter because users aren’t limited to having a single account – nor are they required to use their real names.
  • In securities filings, Twitter claims that “fake” accounts represent fewer than 5% of its active user accounts.
  • But this past summer, security researchers Andrea Stroppa and Carlo de Micheli reportedly uncovered more than 20 million fake accounts for sale on Twitter – which is closer to 10% of Twitter’s active account base.  (Twitter had no comment on this report.)
  • Stroppa and de Micheli also unearthed the existence of software programs that allow spammers to create unlimited fake accounts on Twitter.  (Twitter had no comment on this report.)

Evidently, Twitter has taken stabs at reducing fakery among its account base — however sporadically.

About a year ago, the company reportedly worked with a team of researchers from UC Berkeley and George Mason University to identify fake Twitter accounts and minimize “robot” activity.  This was done by actually purchasing fake Twitter accounts on the black market and then identifying their common characteristics.

A filter subsequently developed was then able to block ~95% of such accounts – but it was only a matter of days before the underground market figured out ways to get around the new filters.

Within two short weeks, the filters were successfully blocking only about 50% of new fake Twitter accounts, and that percentage has continued to decline further since then.

And these faux accounts are available for a ridiculously small amount of money.  For instance, this past November one marketer purchased 1,000 accounts from an online vendor located in Pakistan … for a whopping $58.

This marketer then programmed them to “follow” the Twitter account of a rap artist client who was interested in boosting his standing on the social network.

In addition, those same accounts have been used to retweet the rapper’s own tweets, thereby giving them greater exposure on Twitter.

And believe it or not, this sort of ruse often works, because prominence on Twitter can lead to legitimate attention by an unwitting press and other “influencers.”

But it’s all blue smoke and mirrors, of course.

The downside?  As more of these stories get reported and shine a light on the seedy underside of the Twittersphere, it can’t help but have a negative impact on the social platform’s reputation.

… Beginning with people like you and me.

JWT’s Annual Forecast of Key Trends for Upcoming Year: “All About Me”

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

JWT (J Walter Thompson)For the past decade or so, marketing communications firm JWT Worldwide (for the tradition-minded, the alternate name for J. Walter Thompson) has issued an annual forecast of key trends for the upcoming year.

For 2014, JWT has identified certain key trends it believes will “shape our world” in the upcoming year and beyond.  They’re pretty interesting – and it’s hard to argue with most of them.

Here are four trends that struck me as the most interesting and significant:

  • The Age of Impatience – With the mainstreaming of the on-demand economy and an “always-on” culture, consumers want what they want now – or yesterday preferably!
  • The End of Anonymity – The NSA surveillance revelations were the icing on the cake here:  Unless you’re a monk on Mount Athos, it’s no longer possible to remain unobserved or untracked by corporations and governments – and you might not even be able to fly below radar on Mt. Athos.
  • Rage Against the Machine – In the inevitable backlash against the “end of anonymity,” many consumers resent or fear technology, even as they embrace it.  But like that second dark chocolate truffle, it’s the classic conundrum of hating the very thing you can’t resist.
  • Remixing Tradition – Taking cherished traditions and recasting them in a new light – whatever “feels right” today.  The burgeoning support for gay marriage is just one manifestation of this trend.

In order to develop its annual key trends forecast, JWT engages in a combination of qualitative and quantitative research and analysis.  For this year’s report, that included an online survey of ~1,000 adults in the U.S. and U.K., along with input from ~70 JWT planners and researchers across numerous markets.

The JWT forecast includes a total of ten trends.  The 2014 JWT report outlines all ten of them.  Are there any you particular agree with — or disagree perhaps?

Customer testimonials and user reviews: Social media takes a time-honored marketing tactic … and puts it on steroids.

Phillip Nones Advertising, Business, Marketing Communications, Social Commentary, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , ,

product and service ratingsThere’s no question that most people value hearing the opinions of others when deciding whether to purchase a new product.

But in the fast-evolving world of social media where there’s been an exponential increase in testimonials, ratings and recommendations about various products and services, what types of recommendations resonate most?

We may have some answers to that question in results from a recent survey sponsored by marketing firm Social Media Link, which was issued in October to all members within the company’s Smiley360 community brand activation program.

Dubbed the “Social Recommendation Index,” the 20-question online survey was answered by more than 10,300 respondents.

The survey isn’t exactly a true cross-section of American consumers in that the vast majority of the respondents were women.  Moreover, most respondents were between the ages of 25 and 45.  Still, the results are certainly worth a look.

For starters, three-fourths of the respondents stated that fewer than 10 reviews are all that they need to make a purchase decision.

Moreover, the most valuable reviews tend to be the ones that include personal stories, rather than a laundry list of product benefits.

By contrast, “star” ratings are the least influential type of review by far:  Only ~15% of respondents report that those ratings are the most important way to influencing their purchase decisions.

The degree of impact of a product review also depends on who’s doing the reviewing:

  • 86% cite reviews by friends and family members as having the  biggest impact
  • 39% are influenced by blogger reviews 
  • Only 11% report that celebrity reviews have the most impact

I’m not at all surprised about the paltry figure for celebrities.  Celebrity endorsements in general are far less influential than many marketers would like to admit – a topic I’ve blogged about in the past.

"It's OK. Your cousin Merlin also likes the product!"
“It’s OK. Your cousin Merlin also likes the product!”

Considering that “friends and family” are the most influential reviewers, it also comes as little surprise that survey respondents view Facebook as the most trusted of all the major social platforms:

  • Facebook:  ~68% consider highly trustworthy
  • Pinterest:  ~56%
  • YouTube:  ~51%
  • Twitter:  ~41%

Commenting on the research conclusions, Social Media Link’s CEO Susan Frech stated this:  “The survey found that people don’t need hundreds of recommendations and reviews to entice purchase; it’s really about receiving a quality message from a trusted source.”

Click here to view an infographic summarizing the Social Recommendation Index key findings.

What about you?  Is your view different from what’s been reported in this study?  If so, please share your observations with other readers here.

The $25 Tweet

Phillip Nones Advertising, Branding, Business, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

Value of a tweetA marketing analytics firm is claiming that the average tweet on branded Twitter sites is worth a little over $25.

Yep, you read that correctly; $25.62, to be precise.

The revenue estimate comes to us courtesy of SumAll, a data visualization and analytics firm.  It reached that conclusion after reviewing more than 900 of its customers’ social media program efforts.  SumAll published its findings last week in an infographic.

To those who might look at the ~$25 figure and scoff (that may be most readers), it should be noted that once the total number of people who see an individual tweet is taken into consideration, the amount of revenue gained per impression is only about one half of one penny, on average.

To put this into context, $0.005 revenue-per-impression is lower than most other marketing tools and about on par for AdWords revenues-per-impression.

The imputed revenue from tweets amounts to about 1%-2% in incremental revenues, according to SumAll’s study group.

Not surprisingly, this announcement was met with questions … and some skepticism.  Asked to explain further how SumAll came up with its results, a SumAll spokesperson replied on the company’s blog:

“… Our data comes from our own user base of over 30,000 people.  We anonymize the data first and then aggregate all the data to derive new, interesting insights from a broad population.  For this infographic, we collected data from all users who have a Twitter stream and commerce stream, and conducted some calculations to derive the value of each tweet.”

There, that should clear up matters nicely, right?

As if pre-anticipating the muffled sniggers or raised eyebrows in reaction to this “non-response response,” the blog response continued:

“This is obviously a little overgeneralized, but I hope that [it] clears some things up.”

Uh-huh.  Or as radio NPR talk show host Diane Rehm might say, “All right and we’ll leave it at that.”

The experience of our clients hasn’t approached what SumAll is reporting … but I’m interested in hearing what kind of results other companies may have experienced using Twitter as a social marketing platform.  Any particularly positive stories (or negative ones) to report?  Please share you observations here.

The Very Latest Trends in B-to-B Content Creation Activities …

Phillip Nones Advertising, Marketing Communications, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,

Content Marketing, Content CreationFor anyone who’s paying attention in business, “content marketing” is all the rage right now.  That’s not surprising, considering that “content” is the common link between advertising, promotion, public relations and social media.

Each year, the Content Marketing Institute, working in conjunction with MarketingProfs and Brightcove, conducts research among B-to-B marketers to gauge the type of content marketing that is increasing in popularity.  The CMI’s most recent report, B2B Content Marketing: 2013 Benchmarks, Budgets and Trends – North America has now been issued.

This report provides results from more than 1,400 surveys collected from North American members and subscribers of MarketingProfs and the Content Marketing Institute.

I think the survey is representative of business as a whole because the respondents include a mix of company sizes – ranging from fewer than 10 employees (~39% of the survey sample) to the very largest firms having more than 1,000 employees (~5% of the sample).

Respondent titles are varied, too – encompassing advertising/MarComm functions (~37%), corporate management (~31%) plus various other functions that handle marketing and communications as part of their responsibilities.

When we compare the results of the new survey to the one that was completed last year (I blogged about that survey here), we find that in nearly every category of B-to-B content creation, there is greater participation now.  (The one exception is the use of print magazines.)

For the record, here is how B-to-B content activity breaks down today, from highest to lowest usage:

  • Social media:  ~87% of respondents are using
  • Website articles (own site):  ~83%
  • e-Newsletters:  ~78%
  • Blogs:  ~77%
  • Case studies:  ~71%
  • Videos:  ~70%
  • Website articles (other sites):  ~70%
  • In-person events:  ~69%
  • White papers:  ~61%
  • Webinars and/or webcasts:  ~59%

A number of other tactics are used by a minority of B-to-B respondents:

  • Research reports:  ~44%
  • Web microsites:  ~40%
  • Infographics:  ~38%
  • Mobile content:  ~33%
  • e-Books:  ~32%
  • Print magazines:  ~31%
  • “Virtual” conferences:  ~28%
  • Podcasts:  ~27%
  • Mobile apps:  ~26%
  • Digital magazines:  ~25%
  • Print newsletters:  ~24%
  • Annual reports:  ~20%
  • Gamification:  ~11%

So it’s clear that “a lot of people” are employing “a lot of tactics” in content creation.  But which ones do they feel are most effective?

An interesting finding of the survey measures the “confidence gap” between respondents who feel that certain content tactics are “more effective” versus “less effective.”  Taking the difference between these two percentages yields a “confidence spread.”

This evaluation shows that B-to-B marketers consider a traditional tactic — in-person events – to be the most effective one:

  • In-person events:  +34 “confidence gap” rating
  • Case studies:  +28
  • Webinars and webcasts:  +22
  • Blogs:  +16
  • e-Newsletters:  +16
  • Videos:  +16
  • Research reports:  +14
  • White papers:  +14
  • e-Books:  +10
  • Website articles (own site):  +6
  • Website articles (other sites):  +0
  • Web microsites:  +0

And where are marketers publishing content?  The survey finds that B-to-B marketers are using an average of five social media sites to distribute content, with the “usual suspects” coming in at the top of the list:

  • LinkedIn:  ~83% of respondents use for distributing content
  • Facebook:  ~80%
  • Twitter:  ~80%
  • YouTube:  ~61%
  • Google+:  ~39%
  • Pinterest:  ~26%
  • SlideShare:  ~23%
  • Vimeo:  ~12%
  • Flickr:  ~10%
  • Foursquare:  ~8%
  • Instagram:  ~7%
  • Tumblr:  ~7%

A number of these social sites didn’t even show up in last year’s results – Pinterest and Vimeo in particular, but also Tumblr, Instagram and Foursquare.

It really underscores how “fresh” things remain in the social sphere – and how marketers can’t afford to take their eye off of the ball even for an instant when it comes to the tactical considerations of content creation.

There are additional findings available from the CMI research report, which you can download here.  And feel free to comment below on any of the results that seem particularly interesting (or surprising) to you.

Optify Measures Social Media Activity in the B-to-B Market

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

Optify logoThis is my fourth and final post about the findings of Optify’s recently published business-to-business online marketing analysis.  The focus of this post is on what Optify found about social media usage.  (You can read my other posts on B-to-B web traffic and advertising here, here and here.)

Optify, which is a developer of digital marketing software for B-to-B marketing professionals, analyzes web behaviors and releases a report each year.  This annual “benchmark” report is particularly important in that the findings are reported from actual web activity, not from surveys.

The key takeaway findings on the social media front are these:

  • Despite all of the continuing hype, social media remains a very small fraction of traffic and leads to B-to-B websites.  In fact, social media has contributed to less than 5% of B-to-B web traffic and leads.
  • Facebook drives the more than half of the social media-generated web traffic to B-to-B websites, versus about one-third from Twitter and most of the remaining traffic from LinkedIn.
  • Visitors who arrive at B-to-B sites from LinkedIn are more likely to view more pages per visit (~2.5 page views on average) than visitors who come from Facebook (~1.9 page views) or Twitter (~1.5 page views).
  • Despite generating more traffic Facebook drives fewer actual B-to-B leads than either Twitter or LinkedIn.
  • At this time, Twitter appears to be the most lucrative social media source for leads, with a higher-than-average conversion rate of ~2.1% (defined as a visitor taking an action such as submitting a form).

Because of this last data point, Optify posits that companies should not shy away from considering social media‘s potential as a source for leads as opposed to being just an  awareness tool.

I’m sure Optify’s figures don’t lie.  But I for one remain unconvinced about social media’s lead generation potential in the B-to-B realm.