Elastic Thought

Edgerank for Brands and Agencies

Search marketing is big business.  And why not?  We've worked with clients that can monetize the traffic they get from searches placed in the major engines, as well as the negative impact of bad reviews or otherwise that show up on the first page of these search engines.  We've been working in the SEO and SEM industry since Alta Vista (remember that?).  The industry (and the major search engines) have come a long way in terms of sophistication, and so has the industry.

The interesting thing is that social media is changing the search marketing industry more so than anything in the past 13 or 14 years.  Not only do social media sites, blogs, comments and other social tools effect search rankings (and therefore how companies market through search), but Facebook and Twitter have their own search engines to surface content on their platforms.  While Twitter's may be somewhat rudimentary and giving rise to the popular #hastag, Facebook has grown a little more sophisticated as evidenced by their recent presentation on EdgeRank.

Now, this is completely expected.  With so much conversation going on in Facebook, it's getting hard to hear anything.  Imagine if your newsfeed had everything from everyone you follow (from important stuff to lost sheep in Farmville).  You couldn't keep up.  So Facebook put an algorithm in place to help decide for you.  This blog post isn't to explain what an object or edge is, or how affinity, weight or time decay do to the edge score.  For now, let's just go off of the preface that you need to have great content that people interact with recently to show up.

If it isn't heated already, this should super-heat the space for "news feed optimization" or just plain "social media optimization."  And it's like the beginning days of search marketing in the search engines all over again.  We just have a few new engines (and algorithms) to pay attention to now.

And it matters.  Businesses are utilizing social media more and more, and being "found" is crucial.  And, like traditional search engines, the basis is understanding the "rules of the game" (the algorithm), but more importantly, coming up with great content.  Now, every bit of great content still needs a boost to be seen, for sure.  Smartwater didn't just put Jennifer Aniston on YouTube and figure it would go viral.  They "seeded" it.  It's a great piece.  And with some proper PR, social media support, and seeding with influencers, it has over 6 million views in 3 days.  Well done.

EdgeRank is just the beginning.  The traditional search portals are looking at integrating what they can from the social sites, and the sites themselves will continually work on their algorithms.  Social media "optimization" is going to be the thing that the agencies all begin to start touting.

And that's a good thing.

PR and social media disasters are abound these days as companies and agencies continue to relegate their actives to young, inexperienced team members figuring they "know social" more due to their age.  Social media is quickly becoming an art AND a science.  And that should help shake out some of the so-called "social media experts" in the field.  Anyone can create a Facebook page or post on Twitter (or, or, or)…but you start to separate talent when you need engagement and results from your social media activities.  Now, you need to account for the algorithm along with creating content that engages, and figuring out a plan to make sure that great content is seen.

It's not easy anymore.  And the harder it gets, the better the agencies will have to become.  That's good for businesses as there will be fewer (but more qualified) candidates in the industry.  Although, it will be interesting when the question moves from "what's your twitter strategy" to "what's your EdgeRank strategy?"  At least the second is a pertinent and real question.  I don't think many of our competitors would have a good answer to the second.

However, if you would like to know ours, or want us to put one together for you….

 

Thank You, Clients (and Friends)

We are a small collection of diverse skills and we make a living by creating and executing ideas for people/companies that pay us.  That would make us an agency, a boutique, a creative shop, or any other term used to describe our line of work.  And there are a lot of perceptions about what it is like working in this type of environment.  Most of them are true. 

Let me run through a few of them. 

The Pros:

Creative agencies are fun, dynamic places.  There is a lot of energy and "play time" that goes into creative brainstorming, and you are never bored because there is always something new to do, always some new challenge to solve for your diverse clientele.  There is also the perception of the fun of taking clients out on an expense account, alcohol, and too much "play time" for the sake of creativity.

The Cons:

It's a pressure-cooker.  Deadlines are tight, and you are often asked to solve the impossible.  Inside the agency, professionals are hyper-competitive with each other (both with other agencies and within the same agency itself).  And clients are often-times over-demanding.  You never have down time because there is always a new task to be done for someone, somewhere.  It's like dog years, 1 year in an agency is like 7 years in a "regular" job.  And that creates high turn-over, anxiety, and sometimes problems at home (long hours, trips, missed family events, etc.). 

But the one thing you hear from colleagues consistently is that there is a tremendous lack of respect in all of the above, and that it is getting worse.  Blame it on the economy, blame it on a society that doesn't value manners as it once did, or blame it on the two party political system.  But the stories you hear from how agencies treat their own people, to the abuses you hear from clients' demands, to the downright childish behavior in the boardroom, you can't help but believe the trend:

People are increasingly treating each other with a complete lack of respect for the individual--as a professional, and often times as a fellow human being. 

But I titled this blog post "Thank You, Clients" so let me explain. 

Elasticity as been through several phases in its short history.  From conceiving the company, to looking for investment, working with a parent company, buying itself back and working autonomously as a stand alone unit.  But over the course of over 2 years, our success has come completely from our clients.  Now, I know this time of year (well, the end of last year) is when everyone thanks their clients.  "Thank you for sending us business that helps us pay the bills" is the typical sentiment.  But I want to go further because we have been extremely lucky these past few years: 

Thank you for trusting in a new agency, and most of all, thank you for the respect you give us as professionals in the industry and as people.  The relationships we've built with you buck the trend so prevalent in our industry and makes the work we do much more meaningful.  And that extends past "keeping the lights on" at the agency.  It extends to our personal and home lives, and allows us to focus on the "pros" of working at an agency and not have to worry about the "cons" as much.  What I value the most is not the checks as much as the professional fulfillment of working in a partnership where there is mutual respect. 

So thank you, JIm, Jeff, Luci, Laura, Jennifer, Kathy, Kate, Carrie, Andrew, John, Chris, Sarah, Nick, Pat, John, Sloan, Amy, Adam, Ken, Jenn, Scott, Branden, Joylynn, Nate, Todd, Maria, Philip, Matina, John, Brian, David, Andrew, Joe, Erika and the many others we work with every day.  You've helped us differentiate ourselves in one more way: that there can be respect and decorum in this industry.  We appreciate that rare gift.

Thank you.

 

Viva La Idea

Our company, Elasticity, recently bought itself back from our early investors and launched a new logo in celebration of the possibilities of the new company.  Central to that logo is emblazoned the words: "Viva La Idea."   I wanted to briefly touch on why that is so important to us as a company.

 

It comes down to the core of what an agency is.  There are a lot of cogs that make an agency work, and a lot of ways that agencies can become great.  Most companies will say it is their people.  You may also hear about processes, tools, client lists, and otherwise.  But really, it comes down to ideas.

 

If you are in the industry, you've most likely been part of a few "brainstorms" in your day.  These meetings are generally where ideas are created--and killed.  And if they don't die there (there are no bad ideas in a brainstorm), they have two more death traps to get past: the account manager and the client themselves.

 

All too often, account managers are to blame.  They get too comfortable with what they believe the client wants, and… more likely, too comfortable with the money the account brings into the agency and they get complacent.  They are afraid to present an edgy idea.  Or they are afraid to stand up for an idea and really sell it into a client that may show hesitancy at first to a new idea.

 

We've always stood behind the fact that ideas are much more than what is being drummed out of most agencies today.  We've always said that a list of tactics is not a strategy.  Proposing tool checklists are not ideas.  But we realize that the agency may not be completely at fault for not creating truly compelling ideas.  We realize that there are a lot of young, talented, and creative folks that are not getting their ideas to the table.

 

We know that clients want to hear those ideas.  We know that you can stand behind a good idea and not jeopardize your business, but rather, gain respect with your client.  Even if they don't buy that idea.

 

So for the creative talent that watches good ideas die every day, for the clients that miss out on truly ground breaking campaigns due to complacency, and for the ideas themselves, we've pledged to create, nurture, and not abandon great ideas.

 

Long live the great idea.

Why Waste Your Money on Mediocrity?

Let me just come right out and say it here at the top of the post: the vast majority of digital marketing or social media work coming out of the large agencies is mediocre at best.

Now, that's not to say that any individual web site or Facebook page, or video, or flash game or iPhone app, etc.  is necessarily mediocre.  There are many award winning pieces out there I'm sure.  But when you look at the effectiveness of a balanced campaign on the whole--where online and offline compliment each other and work with each other--there are few examples that are really worth the $250-$450/hr price rates you are paying at those agencies.  Hell, I'd venture to say there are few campaigns out there worth $150/hr.

I'd also like to extend an olive branch out to the digital groups of those agencies: it's not your fault.  From the colleagues I've met in the various groups, you are immensely talented.  And when I meet you at the next industry event, let me buy you a drink.  Because the tension and frustration of what you deal with on a daily basis, being relegated to the last few slides of the presentation, or the last 10% of the budget (only to be the first cut when there are 'write offs' to be dealt out for 'client satisfaction' and 'overservicing.') and countless other battles you endure take their toll.

But the problem is that the 'leaders' haven't figured it out yet, so the talent is mostly wasted.

Let's look at it this way.  Have you had a Kolache?  They are fantastic for breakfast.  They are also a big trend (if you can call a breakfast food a trend after bacon has so dominated the foodscape pre-noon).  So imagine you are at the fancy hotel itching to order your $25 eggs benedict and $15 hash brown patty.  But you heard about this Kolache and you want to try it.  Now, there is this fantastic Czech bakery right across the street that has the best, authentic Kolaches in the city.  And they are $5.  But the hotel doesn't want to see you and your 3 business partners leave to try one.  That's lost revenue.  So they decide to make you one.  That way, they can still sell their $45 oatmeal bowls to your friends and keep all that revenue 'in house.'  The hotel is a big name hotel with critically-acclaimed chefs, so you decide to stay and try their version of the Kolache and pay $25.  This is a win-win.  You don't have to leave the comfort of the familiar name hotel, and the hotel gets to try and figure out how to make a Kolache on your dime.

Was it good?  I'm betting not.  I'm betting that it was mediocre at best.

But that is how digital is done at the big name agencies.  Don't just take my word for it. B.L. Ochman just wrote about it in Advertising Age.  It's a very scary and accurate look into the sausage factory.  And it's true.  As an anecdote for that post, I still remember being in very similar scenarios.  The pitch is tomorrow and somebody 'upstairs' wants 'some digital' in the presentation.  "Can you knock out a couple of slides we can 'stick' in the presentation?"  Better yet, in competing with the incumbent for one particular project, a compromise needed to be struck on who was going to do what part of the project.  My agencies response?  "our focus isn't really digital, so why don't you guys take that part?"  Let's play a quick guessing game here.  what do you think happened when our digital team took the deck we were supposed to 'stick in a couple of slides' and actually put a bullet or two on EVERY other tactic to tie in digital across the entire campaign and make it look more integrated?

But enough about the process.  And you may be saying that in today's economy, no one has the room to take a chance.  I think the phrase is "nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM?"  So to protect your job, why not pay for mediocre.  And middle of the road is not necessarily a "waste of money," as my blog post title here suggests.

Well, let's look at why it is a waste of money.  If I were to add one more thing to B.L. Ochman's post is that when a client does buy off on slide 29, typically that work that was on that slide is relegated to junior agency folk who may be experienced in social media, but not as it pertains to actual PR, reputation or other business goals.  And what happens?  Well, look at Jennifer Leggio's post last year on social media failures.  (there are plenty more of these--just Google 'social media failure').  Or let's look at a recent example: Nestle. 

Now there is plenty already out there on Nestle.  But I will link you to this blog that interviewed Porter Novelli.  One of the takeaways from the Facebook debacle?  "One of the things Nestle did wrong was to use a junior position to respond to the comments, but they should have used a more experienced senior position to deal with the online attacks. "

This is not all that uncommon, though.  The same arrogance or misunderstanding of the medium that causes Slide 29 to happen are the same people that don't think highly enough of the medium to put skilled people on the project.  And as much as I disagree with a few points in this next blog (will be another post I'm sure), it still gives a great viewpoint of how agencies still think of the medium: 10 Ways digital agencies F up social media

So, I come back to my thesis statement.  The large traditional agencies do mediocre digital work at best, and overcharge you for it.  Perhaps it's time to break out of your comfort zone and go try that Czech bakery across the street?  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.  And at $5, what does it hurt?

If you are looking to try something new, here are some tips on how to choose an agency:

For further reading on Small Agencies vs. The Big Guys:
http://elasticthought.com/2008/09/a-case-for-small-agencies-part-1.html
http://elasticthought.com/2008/09/the-case-for-small-agencies---the-people.html
http://elasticthought.com/2008/09/the-case-for-small-agencies-part-3.html

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....

2 Secrets of Agencies to Watch Out For

In the general public, it's called "caveat emptor" and it does not mean "Seize the Day," but rather "Buyer Beware!"  In terms of agencies, caveats are what we put into proposals to try and mitigate scope creep on projects and more fully explain the estimate of fees.  Also, since agencies do not fit under the implied warranty of fitness,  it's a wide open playing field for an industrious account exec looking to make a name for themselves in the agency.

And this is the point where, after years and years in the industry, I'm still baffled by it.  It used to be a well connected account exec that "knew a guy."  As in: " you need something that my firm doesn't have expertise in?  Don't worry, I know a guy that can do that for you."  But now it's moved beyond that.  Now it's simply: "We can do that."  Even if they can't.  And that's where I'm troubled by this trend.  Let's look at just 2 ways this is put into practice:

1. The infallible agency.  It doesn't matter what the request is, the answer is "we can do that."  And if there is no one in the agency that can, they will either a) hire freelancers with the particular skill or b) ask one of their employees to literally "learn on the job."  The issue here is that these scenarios hurt more than just the client.  For obvious reasons, the situation in (b) is just wrong.  Why wouldn't the company, then, send one of it's employees to training and learn on the job themselves?  And in the case of (a), again, why would the company not just hire freelancers themselves?  The answer that a rational person would give is that they are expecting the agency to bring a level of expertise and experience that can't simply be "learned on the job" or taught in a class.

Yet, this part is not taken into account when the agency accepts (and bids on!) the assignment.  There is no value add.  And that gives every agency a black eye.  I'd even be OK if the agency had a competency in project management that allowed for the freelance option to work.  However, more often than not, this is not the case.  And so, when one agency does this and fails, companies begin to place us all in the same category--as snake oil salesmen that will tell you anything to get the deal.

2. Put this "in a pill."  The other area that fits the category of buyer beware is this next scenario.  Once an agency successfully does a project for a client, they realize they can now sell this "solution" to additional clients.  All that is standing in the way is a well-written marketing slick that talks about how this offering is a dedicated practice in the firm and that they bring a wealth of experience to the table.  This is tricky, since some agencies have actually done this for several clients and can legitimately claim this.  And that is smart marketing.  I wonder how those agencies who put in the time and effort to hone these particular offerings, or went through the time and expense to merge with or acquire the talent feel about the agencies who claim the same offering with just a few well-written paragraphs and the notion that they can fall back on #1 above if they actually sell something?

This is not a lecture on ethics or fairness of competition.  This is not complaining that the other guy is using steroids, only to justify your own use.  This is a piece on buyer beware.  And if possible, a chance to turn the conversation into "Caveat venditor" (or let the seller beware).  With informed companies making hiring decisions of agencies, if they know what to look for, they may begin to spot these trends.  And that puts the agencies other work at risk.  If the agency is doing a good job in one area and begins to exaggerate their skills in another area, does that put the entire relationship at risk?  It is our hope that it does.  Let the seller beware.

Personal Branding Versus the Firm

Talk to a PR veteran.  Watch him or her work.  And I don't mean the young AE's fresh out of J School.  The ones who the companies go to when the national pitch is on the line.  The ones who get called in when the sh$t hits the fan.  Those PR veterans.  Listen to them talk to the editors and journalists, and lawyers and TV producers on the phone.  You start to notice something.  They don't mention the name of the PR firm they work for.  It's not that they're hiding it.  It's because it doesn't matter at this particular point in time.  The veterans doing this work have relationships.  They know who they are talking to on the other end, and the other end knows the PR person they are talking to.  Business is going to get done, and it's going to get done because of the relationship--not because of who's name is printed on the paychecks.

Now look at what's going on today.  The social media tools readily--and freely--available today allow anyone to build an audience.  And the larger the audience, the more "followers" and "friends" they have, the more power they can leverage out of the exponential possibilities of their networked audience.  People have become personal brands.

Jump back to the PR firms now.  They are racing to figure out the social media space.  And in doing so, they are bringing in some of those personal brands out there and bringing them in front of their clients.  But here is the difference about what's going on now that should make you stand up and take notice: these PR firms are touting the person, they are not touting the firm.  Look at their presentations, no real mention of the PR firm's name, they are completely branded to the individual.  The theory is that the person's brand (their built-in audience size) is more crucial to the sale of the work than the firm's history or it's client list, or it's number of offices.

What's ironic is that this isn't exactly new.  Think back to the opening paragraph about the PR veteran who did their work based on relationships.  The difference is that previously, these gurus worked in the big firms because there wasn't a way to tout their individual brand.

Now there is.

So here is my question.  Do you really need a big firm to be effective?  If each individual PR practitioner has the power to build a network, to self-promote, and to use their numbers to the benefit of the client, then what is the value of the big firm?  It's a mixed bag.  It can certainly be useful as a proving ground for young PR AE's fresh out of J School.  Theoretically, if the veteran gurus haven't left, there is a network in the firm to learn from.  But what if they leave?  There is a trend of entrepreneurial upstarts leaving and creating new firms that are agile enough to compete in today's market.  Ad Age's editorial in April was entitled "Big agencies face challenge from social-media upstarts."  (I'd link you, but they lock their articles).  Web 2.0 Journal asks "Is the PR Business Extinct?" then quickly answer: "Yes."

Though I don't see the power of PR going "extinct," I do think the traditional model has eroded enough to cause serious concern.  The new agencies that survive will not only understand the new toolset, but they will understand how to harness personal brands, and give them a reason why they should work together for a fresh, agile, smart firm that understands how to leverage their combined firm and personal brands.

Marketers Need To Try A New Diet

I'm not usually one to pay attention to fad diets and ways to lose weight without trying.  A pill here, more sleep there, drink more water, and voila! 10 pounds lighter.  However, there is a new string of ideas that I've been catching that seem to make sense.  So for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I could explain why my mind instantly connected it to marketing budgets.  Don't judge me.

The two ideas that sparked this are very similar actually.  The first is called the "camera-phone diet" which consists of taking a picture of what you are about to eat with the camera feature on your phone.  The theory is that by thinking of what you are eating, and documenting BEFORE munching down makes one more conscience of their choices in food, and quickly begin ordering and eating better food.  The second idea was even simpler.  The study showed that those who tried new foods frequently were apt to be healthier than the control group who ate in their typical pattern day in and day out.  The theory is relatively the same, in that the people that chose new foods frequently were more conscience of what they were eating and thought about their decisions.  The control group that mindlessly ate without thinking were trapped in a cycle of bad food choices.

So, to marketing.  I'm sure your getting the connection now.  Real simple: mindlessly doing the same tactics over and over again will not yield the same results as a "mixed diet."

And I think this goes beyond simply thinking about the marketing budget and tactics more before spending.  I'm sure every marketing person out there who is responsible for the budget and has check-writing authority thinks about their tactics.  But they continually choose the same tactics.  They are afraid of spending money on an unknown and untested tactic or strategy and will seek refuge in the comfort of known tactics that have predictable metrics.

But what about the consumer you are trying to reach?  There are two things working against the marketer who plays it safe.  One, technology continues to evolve.  Usually, to battle the intrusion of previous marketing tactics.  Tivo, Pop-Up Blockers, Spam Filters, Do Not Call Lists (OK, not technology, but fits here...right?)  And two, consumers themselves stop paying attention to the same drumbeat.  It takes something new to shake them out of that rut and pay attention to your message.

I saw a tweet the other day that said "there is no charge for awsomeness, but mediocrity will cost you."  We've seen it time and time again, that those who mix their diet up and try new things more often than not, outperform those companies that are in their same old rut of stale programs.  Try something new.  And if you can't think of anything new, ask one of the new agencies sprouting up.  I'm sure they will at least challenge your thinking.

What your clients are asking about social media

If you've taken a minute from your busy schedule evangelizing social media, you may hear them starting to ask questions.  And they're good questions.  We recently compiled a list for an event of the local Interactive Marketing Association (GIMA) and added a few of what we've heard from our clients to the list.  I'd be interested to hear feedback, or use the comments section here to debate the answers.  There is never one answer, but there are some good directions, and great intel to be had in this list.  Take this and share it.  It will help you be prepared for your next pitch.

1. There has been a lot of talk regarding calculating the ROI of using Social Media in the overall marketing mix.  Do you think that we can decipher customer motivation from social media alone outside of the entire marketing mix?
2. Money is obviously a factor in today’s advertising budgets.  If we were going to add these lower-cost digital tactics to our plans and budgets, which ones do you feel have the biggest “bang for the buck?”
3. A lot of these tactics and strategies we hear work well for consumer marketing.  We do B2B work.  Do you feel these digital tactics and strategies have the same impact on B2B clients?
4. Target audiences vary by product.  There is a lot of push-back that these are not as effective for audiences older than 30 than for under.  Is this changing?  Are there things I can show my boss to help change his/her mind?
5. When staffing for these new marketing programs (or looking for an agency) what qualifications should we be looking for in a person/agency?
6. What is a typical budget for social media?  The tools are mostly free, but I’m assuming this isn’t as cheap as our budget planners think.
7. How would a company go about starting off a campaign using these new strategies if they’ve never done any digital marketing before?
8. There are lots of varying ideas on this, but I’m curious...who do you feel “owns” the brand?  (customers, companies, social media “loudmouths”, others?)
9. Why is everyone all of a sudden getting on Facebook?
10. What is your viewpoint on design in the new social media space?  It seems that there is less of an emphasis on good user design in these new tools.  Some of them are downright sloppy.
11. It’s clear that you can no longer “build it and they will come,” so how do you go about driving people to online programs?
12. How is mobile going to change what we all do right now in digital marketing?
13. Let’s say I build a great site where I want a community to start, use all the new social media tools to gain exposure, and have a good background of search, display ads, and other “block and tackle” digital marketing to get it noticed.  How then, so I get people to engage with the site once they are there?
14. Are there any digital marketing tools in the toolbox today that you think are going to be obsolete in the near future?
15. What are the top 3-5 research tools online buyers and planners use?
16. What is the set up of responsibilities for online/mobile buying and planning? Is the planner and buyer one role and handled by one position? Or is emerging media planned in a traditional way by a planning team?
17. How is the buy handed off to the creative team for fulfillment? What software is mainly used for contracting and reporting? DoubleClick or Pointroll or any other?
18. Investment in social media marketing requires a buy-in from all levels in an organization, from those who control the information to those who distribute it via the various channels. What advice do you have for organizations on how to engage all of the stakeholders?  Increase communication between layers?