Your Hip Grandma

What am I: An internet property that organizes and filters Web content for its users. A place where people can keep in contact and share things with family and friends. A service you can find like-minded people with similar interests in groups. And it includes a messaging application where you can instantly chat with anyone with whom you chose to connect.

Of course I'm describing Facebook, right? Wrong. I'm talking about AOL. Yes your grandma's AOL.

It's not that much of a secret that the idea of a "behind the fence" or "gated" internet community was first manifested by that old dinosaur AOL, and is what in part inspired Mark Zuckerberg to do the same. It's also apparent that the old AOL "away" message is the antecedent of the Facebook status update.

But there are important behavioral differences and these are critical to marketers. In addition to providing access to the Web, AOL was a place where people sorted through the internet for solutions to their problems, conduct research, access services and to buy things. So in many ways it was closer to Google than Facebook.

And hence there's the rub with Facebook. Facebook is not the place where people go for information, to research solutions or to buy stuff.  They go to keep up with their friends, for amusement and, let's face it, to be diverted. Someone who's looking for diversion may not exactly be in the buying mode. Even when it comes to news, I know very few people who use Facebook as their primary news source, and if they do, I fear how they might vote in the coming election.

So yes, there are millions and millions and millions of users that spend hours a day on Facebook. But just because they are there, it doesn't make them ripe for the picking. There used to be the same numbers of people watching Friends on TV in the 1990s, but,

except for the most big-bucks marketers, were they looking to buy what businesses had to sell?

Getting Saturated (And Not Just by the Rain)

As Hurricane Hermine was preparing to strike the Florida Panhandle last week, here in Northeast Florida I was deluged by a torrent of another kind -- wall-to-wall "storm coverage" by both local and national news outlets.

Now although the storm did create some serious havoc along its direct path, we along the fringes were subject to breathless speculation about wind speeds, rainfall levels, storm path possibilities -- all widely varying and as it turns put completely wrong. On top of that you had local politicians posturing to be somber and leader-like, intoning on how prepared they were and why we should take this threat seriously.

This scenario has played out several times over the last few years as we've been lucky enough to escape major storms here in the hurricane capital of the U.S. (Hermine was the first hurricane to strike Florida since 2005). And you get the sense (justified or not) that the media weather departments can't wait to put their crack storm watch teams into some live action, sort of like invading a country because you want to do something with all that gear and training.

The problem with all this of course is that people start to tune the information out -- sure, whatever you say, heard it all before -- and then when there's a real need to, they won't be listening. But Larry, you might ask, beyond your usual grousing, what does this have to do with marketing since this is a marketing blog? Well I'm getting to that.

I've run across so many companies who think that more is necessarily better. Flood the Facebook page with posts. Send out those email blasts every other day. I actually ran across a prospect who placed the same print ad every day in the same position in the paper.

This is obviously counter-productive from a communications standpoint. You become like wallpaper and people start to tune you out. What's more, with email marketing, open and click-through rates diminish with increased frequency and with Facebook, the more posts you throw out there with no engagement, the less likely you are to get in anyone's feed.

So pick your spots carefully. Make sure you have engaging content with something that will hook your audience. And don't feel the need to beat them over the head with it. Take your cue from David Byrne and the Talking Heads' Psycho Killer:

"When I have nothing to say my lips are sealed
Say something once, why say it again?"

What the # is up with #hashtags?

I did get this actual question from a client with some letters surrounding the symbol along with a few other symbols. You know, like in comic strips when somebody stubs their toe and says something the writers don't want to explicitly show.

So for the uninitiated, hashtags (a word preceded by the # symbol) originated on Twitter as a way to organize conversations or topics. So in theory, it became shorthand or a shortcut for people to find a topic that they were interested in, users to see what topics are trending and for image-obsessed brands (personal or otherwise) to see if they were trendy, trending or whether they needed to start or jump on a trend before there were forlorn and forgotten.

But lo and behold hashtags starting appearing in other social channels like Facebook and even Google+, which I always believed to be the hippest and least trendy of the social channels and only in part because it was the least used (I always was a sucker for digging bands that nobody else had heard of). And I think I overheard people walking down the street actually talking in hashtags the other day and not just those who were wearing those goofy Google Internet goggles.

In any event, as a practical matter hashtags can be tricky. I find them annoying because they invariably take up a crucial character in a tweet that puts me over the limit. And if your hastagging a phrase, it's all run together, like #everydaymarketingadvice. If you are hashtagging inclined, you should a) see what's already out there that your tweet or post can tag onto (pun semi-intended) or b) create a hashtag that you think will be of topical interest to people who are searching. This article on Social Media Examiner has some helpful tips.

The premise behind all of this is that people are actually searching for stuff on social media, but are they? Ah, the topic for yet another future blog post.

How socially effective are you?

No, I don’t mean whether you invariably spill drinks on people at parties or find it hard to start up conversations with strangers (although there are probably virtual equivalents to both). I’m referring of course to your social marketing efforts.

Plenty of businesses spend lots of time on social marketing. Some measure effectiveness by the amount of followers or likes, how many comments they get, reach, or how many “influencers” they create (people that can affect other people’s purchase decision). Others even trot out the vintage Larry Tate (of Bewitched fame) or Madmen adage of brand awareness. Few can tell you what they're actually getting out of it when it comes to booked business.

Many do it because they read they should be doing or because they like it (hey, I’m on Facebook and Twitter all the time anyway). This is the equivalent of a job candidate saying I like to work with people because I’m a people person.

This article from Web Marketing Today makes a valiant attempt to give you a framework for putting some metrics around social. What strikes me is that of all of those listed, only one -- clicks to the website from social channels and the resulting conversions -- are hard metrics. That’s not the fault of the author, it’s simply the nature of the beast. From social interaction through engagement to the sale is a complicated chain and it can be difficult to discern what generated the behavior that resulted in a sale. A person could go to your website directly or through branded search (typing in your business name). There is no definitive way to know what generated that behavior -- advertising, social influence or even a prior search.

So the bottom line is, you have to be careful to calibrate the money, time and resources you put toward social with what you think you are tangibly getting out of it. Now if you can marry social with the search dynamic, that’s a whole other story. And yes, the topic of a future blog post.

What's Really Behind the Facebook Disappointment

At market's close today, Facebook's stock price stood at $30.97, significantly below the IPO price of $38. Talk continues to swirl around pending or potential shareholder lawsuits and even if the Facebook brass did not reveal to the general public what it did to private investors, trading at 100 times earnings should have had everybody's eyes wide open, or at least anyone old enough to remember the last dot com bubble.

What's really underlying the disappointment in Facebook I think, is a growing disillusionment with Facebook as an advertising and marketing vehicle -- a disillusionment that is at least partly the outgrowth of unreasonable expectations.  The dynamics of interactions on Facebook make it less than marketing or advertising friendly and recent Facebook format changes like the timeline make it even less so.

Based on my direct experience and other available data, display advertising on Facebook performs at par or at times below other properties on the Web, which is to say not all that well at all. The only truly consistent performer in online advertising, at least on a click-through-rate basis, is search advertising and as any search advertiser knows there's a big difference in performance on Google for ads based on search and ads displayed on Google's content network.

Now many Web properties, including Yahoo and AOL, have tried to compile the information they have on their users and combine it with their Web behavior to lift banner ad results, as in Yahoo's short-lived SmartAds program of a few years back. This has had limited effect and so far Facebook has refrained from using people's profile information (beyond location) to trigger ads, relying mostly on friend associations and Likes.

And then there's the social marketing aspect of it or as some would have it, the holy grail. All those millions of people are on Facebook, we should be able to sell them stuff right? As I used to say to my clients, constantly pitching what you have on Facebook is like going to a party on Saturday night and spending the entire evening talking about what you do and handing out your business card. You're unlikely to make many friends. The social space is great for starting conversations with clients and prospects, establishing relationships and getting direct and indirect endorsements via Likes. But it will never be a primary marketing driver and give you "free" results, any more than PR can replace paid efforts with "free" advertising.

What should be your primary marketing drivers then? A judicious mix (driven by your business goals) of on and off-line advertising, search, direct marketing, promotion, PR and yes, social. More on each of those in future posts.

Want Someone to Like You? Give Them a Reason

Too often, people put social links on their website or say like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter and then wonder why they don't get any likes or follows besides their friends and relatives. As I often say to my clients, just like in real life, if you want someone to like you give them a reason.

I recently got an email from Staples that dealt with this issue as directly as I've ever seen. The subject line? "Join us on Facebook and Twitter. Here's why."

The email goes on to talk about the exclusive offers, giveaways and special extras available to followers. And that's it in a nutshell. If you want likes on Facebook, followers on Twitter or if you want to get into people's circles on Google +, you have to give them something that can't get on your general website, whether that's deeper information, a chance to get questions answered, coupons, discounts, contests or special offers. Otherwise, there's no motivation for people to take action and getting people to take action is what marketing is all about.

You can view the Staples email here. By the way, the Like button at the top of this post is for illustration purposes only, but thanks for the thought!