It's not about the technology...

Jeremiah Owyang had a great line in the opening paragraphs of his most recent post: “Beware of plans or proposals that start with “Twitter Strategy” or “Facebook Strategy.” I could not agree more. Jeremiah's main point was that proper customer profiling should help define an appropriate social toolset. His statement is also valid, however, because social networking technologies are evolving too quickly to warrant strategies that are very platform-specific.

I think that Alvin Toffler may have called it first, back in 1970, when he laid out the timeline of humans' technology milestones (starting with fire!) and described how the pace of these milestones has been increasing exponentially since then. (The book is called Future Shock. I read it when I was 12, and it changed my life.) Some readers might be more familiar with Ray Kurzweil and his Singularity antics, but the big message is very much the same: the dominant technology of today will almost certainly not be the dominant technology of tomorrow.

Because social networking is enabled by technology, it’s easy to get lured into thinking about single platforms and miss the bigger (and cross-platform) picture. Some great examples of this can be found in the third-annual Social Media study of Inc. 500 companies, where 90% of the companies surveyed responded that they “currently use social media.” Here are four points that were of particular interest to me:

• A full third of those companies surveyed do NOT monitor their brand online
• Almost two thirds of those companies surveyed have no formal social networking guidelines for their employees
• We see (no surprise) that adoption of Twitter and Facebook has occurred very rapidly
• But we also learn that the use of message boards, online video, wikis and podcasting has leveled off or declined.

Wow- So let’s get this straight: Even as 90% of surveyed companies say they use social media, only 66% monitor their brand (eg: the results of their social media efforts) online? And only 33% set guidelines for how their employees should use these channels? In my mind this is an unmistakable (and inexcusable) example of using technology without strategy. It makes me cringe. Remember: whether it’s an online forum, or Twitter, or some future telepathic social hive: basic principles like monitoring and employee code of conduct must be defined. You are otherwise driving blind and setting yourself up for a PR disaster.

And regarding the final two points:  Why are some of the “traditional” social media no longer growing? I would like to think that it’s because companies are beginning to understand the different categories and appropriate uses of social media channels. And, that might be true in some cases. It’s equally likely, however, that organizations continue to jump from one new technology to the next, without a strategy that defines how a full suite of social networking channels could work in concert to support the needs of the organization and various market/customer segments.

Eventually, there will be other Twitters (it will be interesting to watch AOL bring its AIM client base into the modern era), so companies should be thinking about meeting the needs of “market segments whose profiles align with a Twitter-like product” vs. the service itself. Organizations should always be sure that a strategy, with goals and methods of measurement, has been defined before going live in a new social networking platform.

Of course this does not mean that our clients will not have a strategy for Facebook --  of course they will. It simply means that the roots of their strategies will be applicable to other social networking technologies as they evolve. It means that the strategy will account for other social channels and digital marketing efforts. It means that “success” will be defined and that we will measure against it. To do anything else is to leave yourself in a constant state of reaction.

Web marketers, your largest source of website traffic is at risk. What’s the future of search engine marketing?

In my last post, I referred to the last decade as “The Google Decade”.  In 2009, most commercial websites generated over 50% of their traffic from the search engines, primarily Google.  In fact, many DMW clients enjoy search contribution over 70%.  Both sources of search traffic, natural and sponsored (paid), are under attack in 2010 due to the rapid adoption of smartphones and social networking.  Digital marketers need to understand these changes and devise a proactive demand generation plan that includes mobile and social.

Google’s navigational value may diminish as users use mobile applications to direct navigate to brands they know and trust.  The improved usability and convenience mobile applications provide is real and they could change user behavior.  This could impact Google revenue line and share price.  Over the past few years, we have witnessed how users opt Google instead of typing brand URLs into their browsers.  The AdWords revenue from this behavior is huge. Google has responded to this threat to their revenue stream by expanding their mobile and display offerings including AdMob purchase, Android OS rollout and the recent Nexus One Smartphone launch.  With Nexus One, in fact, Google has made search front and center in the design of both the hardware and software.  There are 4 hard coded navigational buttons – Home, Back, Menu and Search.  The top of Home is a large search box.  Even if you load Nexus with your favorite apps, the search field and button are omnipresent.

The rise of the social web has forced Google to include Tweets and Facebook posts in search results, pushing down natural search results.  While the impact of this move to real time search is small today, it could become meaningful, if not significant, in 2010 and beyond.  This will lead to new search optimization tactics, some of which may border on spam, and best practices.  For example, if you Tweet exclusive offers to your followers, these could be found at the top of Google search results.  Also, can users searching Facebook find your company?

So, what should marketers do?  They should be proactive and anticipate this potential risk to their web traffic.  Marketers should get serious about these important and growing areas of digital marketing and devise new digital demand generation strategies.

• Social Networking – start with a company audit and strategy framework and follow with paid social media. Social tactics without strategy are over-rated.  
• Social Search Optimization – how can you gain better natural search positions by leveraging social?  How can you assure your brand is easily findable on Facebook and other social networks? 
• Cross-media Measurement & Management – move away from “last click” measurement and understand the interplay between all digital media. Allocate and optimize digital media based on full revenue attribution.   
• Social Media – Facebook’s targeted CPC program has real potential for marketers. It should, however, be tracked and managed with other search and digital media. 
• Mobile Media – begin testing and measuring mobile search, links and display advertising. As Google builds out Android (AT&T just decided to carry Android phones!), mobile search volume will increase. 

There will be a lot of changes in media consumption and user behavior in 2010 and digital marketers need to stay ahead of these changes and understand how they will impact their demand generation plans, traffic, revenues and profits.  On this blog, we will try to keep you informed and provoke new thinking and discussion.  We welcome the dialogue and debate.  Please comment and share your thoughts below.

Is Forrester's Groundswell Missing a Step?

While recently discussing a potential client with Jack, it occurred to me that The Groundswell, by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff, makes an assumption (in my edition, at least) that might not be as valid as it once was: that an organization is starting from (social) scratch.

The potential client is a national brand with brick-and-mortar retail throughout the United States. While corporate HQ currently considers dipping its toe into the Social pool, some of the individual retail sites have been running Facebook and Twitter accounts for some time. Corporate has no real sense of who is doing what, and you can bet that there are no guidelines regarding the branded content being pushed through these channels. This kind of situation will continue to become more common as the adoption curves of social media continue upwards. I won’t bemoan the potential risks of allowing franchises and employees to communicate in this manner without policies and guidelines – I think most readers will agree that at least basic expectations should be defined by the organization.

In light of this, I think that the Groundwell POST approach to social strategy needs a minor update. As defined by its authors, the “P” stands for “People: Assess your customers’ social activities”. This is generally construed to be the baseline phase of the strategy and usually includes (for me, at least) conducting an assessment of competitors’ social activity as well. My recommendation: Update the “P” in the POST strategy to “People: Assess your customers’ and employees’ social activities.”

Conducting an assessment of employees’ and franchises’ social activity might help to kick-start a centralized Social effort by identifying disparate customer communities and examples of good (or not so good) guidelines and goals. Depending on the depth of the analysis, this first stage might also yield some rough metrics regarding the ROI of Social. Example: We might learn that certain employees are able to resolve customer service issues directly and for far less cost per incident than traditional call centers. Final note: Any new strategy must be aware of the current state. Without this awareness, customers might get confusing or even contradictory information, which in turn will most likely detract from desired goals and metrics.

Thoughts? How central is an initial internal assessment to your Social Media efforts?

Was Operation Chokehold the First of the Social Consumer Wars?

When we look back at the emergence of social media and The Groundswell, Operation Chokehold will most likely stand out as an important case study. On the one hand, it is an important example of customers taking whatever steps necessary to engage with their brand. On the other hand, however, it’s a sure lesson in missed social marketing opportunities.

First, a quick summary: A striking percentage of iPhone users are unhappy with their service via AT&T and angered by AT&T’s suggestions that a few “data hogs” are ruining the experience for everyone else. Here’s the common knowledge: their network was weak to begin with, they sold a ton of iPhones, and that in turn dragged down their quality of service even further. Fuel was added to the fire when Fake Steve Jobs suggested that iPhone users should protest by maxing out the data usage of their phones at a coordinated date and time in an effort to gut-punch the AT&T network. Despite the obvious satire that is Fake Steve, people are so fed up with AT&T that “Operation Chokehold” took on a life of its own.

Operation Chokehold has been discussed from a lot of angles. Keep in mind that I’m going to keep us focused on how this relates to social marketing…

Let’s begin with a quick look the technographic profiles of the “OC” audience. This recent study (pdf download) from Nielson confirms what most of us would assume: iPhone users overindex as young, educated, affluent, and tech-savvy. Safe assumption: the audience is higher up the technographic ladder.  So we have an audience that has enviable demo- and techno- graphics and a solid common cause. Sounds like a ripe opportunity for social marketing, right?

Well, it turns out that the actual event sort of fizzled. There are a few reasons for this, including 1) Fake Steve began to beg off a little, encouraging people instead to protest in front of physical Apple Stores, and 2) People really have better things to do. There is an important third reason, however:  Fake Steve (actually, Dan Lyons) is not a social marketer. If he were, he would have understood, via technographic profiling, that his audience requires more than being blogged at. They are high-functioning social networkers who need to be engaged. Two quick examples of what he could have done: Better promotion of the Operation Chokehold Facebook group that was set up by some loyal readers, and use of a “Fake Steve” Twitter account to build up suspense towards the main event. Both platforms would have met his socially-sophisticated audience’s needs for more robust interaction with each other and with Fake Steve himself. The lesson: Social events must be recognized for what they are and a methodology that begins with analysis must be applied. Without this, a situation with the right ingredients might still fail to build strong momentum.

We obviously don’t have real expectations for Fake Steve within Social Marketing. It’s not what he does. We’re just using his event as a case study here. So let’s move on to the second lesson of the day, which Operation Chokehold demonstrated quite well: Embrace your clients before they try to forcibly embrace you. Perhaps the best example of such “hostile embracing” was the crowdsourced army that poured over AT&T’s public records and published some findings that were quite contrary to official statements.

Despite the missed opportunities to leverage social marketing best practices, I believe that Fake Steve and Operation Chokehold will still force a brand with one of the biggest advertising budgets in America towards the customers’ desired course of action: I expect that some time in Q1 2010 AT&T will announce a new infrastructure improvement plan for major cities like New York.

When we talk about social marketing, I see a lot of organizations that seem to be trying to “get there,” as if setting up Twitter and Facebook profiles (as AT&T has done) are an end result. Social is young and evolving quickly, so this stunted understanding is forgivable, for now. Organizations must be prepared to react to what customers communicate via these channels, however, and AT&T is clearly not yet at that stage. Operation Chokehold is an early example, on a big scale, of the coming changes in brand/customer dynamics. It’s up to AT&T, and all of the brands that will surely follow, to fight this inevitable trend or to learn and embrace.

Will Google become the “Google” of Social?

In an earlier post, Jack mused on the Digital Marketer’s dilemma regarding Google: in a nutshell, superb ease of use (and price point!) vs. some increasingly shady questions regarding data ownership. In this post, I would like to apply similar questions to social media and social networking. So here’s our Question of the Day: Will Google become the “Google” of the Social world? The short answer is that Google is not there yet, but given certain trends, I’m quite sure that it will be. Let’s start with the trends and then bring it back to Google…

Historically, social networks have been online destinations. That is, one goes to www.facebook.com or www.myspace.com to operate in those social networks. This is true for thousands of special-interest websites and forums, too. An unfortunate result of these “social silos” is that one person has many identities (profiles) across the platforms and services. This arrangement impedes the sharing of information beyond a particular destination’s domain and challenges marketers to define meaningful ROI metrics within and across platforms.

The biggest social networks seem to be catching on that their relevance depends on breaking free of a destination-based model. Examples: Millions of Twitter subscribers use third party applications and hardly ever see the Twitter homepage, and Facebook has opened up its API to third-party applications like Pandora for music and Flickr for photos. Applications like these consolidate social access points. This, in turn, brings more content to the platforms while simultaneously promoting the sharing of information across them. By the way, there are precedents for this important trend. Can you imagine having to use a different email client like Outlook for each of your email accounts? Access to instant messaging platforms has been consolidated for years via applications like Trillian and Adium. And most recently, several applications originally designed for Twitter now access Facebook (Seesmic) and even LinkedIn (TweetDeck), too.

So let’s bring this back to Google and its relevance in Social. Google is already very far ahead of other platforms in terms of evolving to a “post-destination” social network. The strategy is to provide ubiquitous tools that sit quietly in the background so that you can “become social” on demand. Here’s a few examples:

• Google Reader allows me to follow my contacts’ reading lists and share comments with them on articles of interest.
• Although in its infancy, Sidewiki allows me to share comments on most web pages that I browse. 
• Android brings location-aware and on-the-scene functionality into Google. As Google’s social platform matures, Android will be the killer, in my opinion.
• The others: Let’s not forget about Google Talk, Google Voice, Gmail, Picassa, YouTube, Blogger, Checkout, and more...
  

Unlike core Facebook functionality, use of these tools does not require me to be present in a specific destination. And, while Facebook looks too big to fail, let’s also remember that Google has only just launched a true foray into Social. Its recent move to include feeds from Twitter does more than provide real-time content; Twitter data in Google subtly begins to turn users onto the idea that Google can be a social platform. Combine this with their recent release of Google Profiles, and I think we’ve just seen the beginning of Google’s eventual domination of Social. Here’s what will happen: the Profiles will slowly tie together Google’s disparate services into a social juggernaut that enables users to share thoughts and content immediately and directly from the content’s point of origin. The real question for Facebook is to see if it can “spread out” faster than Google can consolidate users to their Google Profiles. If not, Facebook will simply become consumed by Google, like so many services before it.

So there’s my case for Google’s inevitable ascendancy in the social world. And… it brings us back to the same questions raised by Jack. Should we fear the fact that one organization will own so much of our personal data and the gateways for marketers to access it? I’ll point out that it’s this kind of paradigm that will eventually lead us to meaningful exercises in measuring the lifetime value of a customer. It will further help us to find true champions of our brands. And, just like today, Google needs us, the marketers, as much as we need it. After all, what’s the value of all that data if Google can’t turn around and sell it right back to us?

The Google Decade - such an impact but is the trust eroding?

Google was the most impactful digital company of the past decade.  But, is Google the greatest friend to digital marketers or a revenue hungry behemoth that cannot be trusted?

I founded my digital advisory and agency in early 2003, before Google was well know or public.  I believed then, as I do now, that the ROI efficiency and measurability of paid search would change direct marketing as we knew it.  I also remember Google’s altruist mantra “organizing the world’s information” and their intense “focus on search relevancy” for optimal “user experience”.  While reviewing their corporate information page yesterday, it struck me how they have tried to position each of their new services to fit with this core mission.  But, some of this is a stretch, to say the least - “people see [Google] ads that are so useful and relevant that they become a valuable form of information in their own right.”  In fact, any search marketer knows how Google constantly tweaks their broad search matching algorithm to yield the greatest number of clicks (many non-converting clicks indicating a non-relevant user experience) to yield greater revenue and earnings.  Similar issues expect with Google Content targeting.

But, let’s give Google some credit – they have innovated better, faster (and probably cheaper) than any other marketing services company (maybe any company) this decade and that has brought great value to advertisers (mostly all) and publishers (at least some).  Take a look at this set of products that assist digital marketers large and small as well as digital agencies – Adwords, AdSense, Google Analytics, Website Optimizer, Insights for Search, Ad Planner, DoubleClick, YouTube ads, Google TV ads, Google Open Exchange, Google Affiliate Network, mobile ads, etc.   

Last week, Google revealed their Display Advertising Strategy based on bringing Simplicity, Performance and Openness to a fairly complicated industry landscape. I really do love how simple Google keeps everything, despite the rapid rate of new product releases. 

As you can see, I am a bit conflicted about Google.  I regularly find myself in the middle of client discussions about online ad platforms and struggling a bit to not just jump on the Google bandwagon and adopt all of their ad management tools – boy, wouldn’t that be so much easier (i.e. simple) and cheaper for all.  Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that many of the ad products are free in order to stimulate adoption, usage and ad spending. Google also has self-service capabilities built into many of their ad tools, making them a logical choice for small and local businesses.

But, larger and more sophisticated advertisers should worry about putting all their eggs into the Google basket.  While Google is the dominant search engine, Bing is grabbing market share and Yahoo still drives decent volume.  You need tools to manage and optimize paid search on these engines.  Also, while Google reaches a large share of the web with their display network and exchange, you can’t reach users on all websites.  With the growth of behavioral targeting, it’s important to be able to follow those intent cookies, no matter what website they are on.  Then there is the data ownership issue.  Who owns all that data Google is capturing through all these ad tools? 

A hybrid approach could be one solution to this dilemma.  Perhaps digital agencies should segment their clients based on their needs and willingness to pay and offer a tiered ad management solution with the Google only solution as the base offering and a premium, configured solution as an up-sell.

What do you think?  Can we resist the Google temptation?  Should we trust Google?  Can we?