Viral

Viral Is Not A Strategy

Marketers have to deal with a lot of tough questions like "how much will this cost?", "can you guarantee it will be successful?" and "what's the point in Marketing, shouldn't we be focusing on sales?" Lately, there's an even tougher hill to climb. More often than not I'm hearing a statement - in client, business development and at seminars/conferences - that goes something like this: "we need our program to go viral."

Viral is not strategy. Viral is an outcome. You can plan for it all you want. You can implement the right hooks that makes something go viral. You can even trick components of it to get passed along, but in the end, you don't decide if something goes viral... everyone else does.

Viral is the effect of doing everything right - strategy, design, content, creative and marketing it in the right channel - the added layer that makes something "go viral" comes through community acceptance and embrace. Stuff we think should go viral never does, and the stuff we think nobody would ever care to play with always goes viral.

If a Marketer claims that they can make something go viral, be sure to steal their crystal ball on the way out of the meeting.

This is not an anti-Viral Marketing post. Not in the least bit. If I could make everything I touch go viral, I would (including this post). All a Marketer can do is their best. Typically, if you're really doing your best stuff, the outcome will be viral - it will get passed along, it will spread, people will talk about it, and people will do something about it.

Last thought on viral: adding in a prize can help. It will get passed along more and create more awareness , but Marketers need to understand that it's the prize that went viral, and not the product/service. The brand takes second fiddle. Never the sexiest part of the orchestra.

The Ultimate Decision

The Promise:
It came upon us as a promise, wrapped in the innocence of simplicity. The inner core of a brand captured miraculously in a simple question.

“How likely is it that you would recommend us to a friend or colleague.”

The Net Promoter Score was born. The brainchild of Fred Reichheld, a Bain & Co. Fellow and Dr. Laura Brooks of Satmetrix Systems. The sort of material that Harvard Business Review writes their cases about. In fact HBR did publish an article in Dec 2003 with the eye catching title “The one number you need to grow”. The equivalent of a viral campaign unfolded, supplemented with a book… global speaking engagements.

Just as a black hole, the simplicity drew everyone to it. The promise, incubated by field studies at 400 businesses (turns out to have been 50+ in the end) which held that if we managed our customers properly – our business would grow. To do so only required our focus on customers who are either our promoters (scoring you a 9 or 10), passives (scoring you a 7 or 8) or detractors (scoring you 6 or less). Wait a minute – that’s all our customers. Exactly, but we’ll get to that again at the conclusion.

The Formula: % of Promoters - % of Detractors = Net Promoter Score (NPS)

Therefore if 50% of your respondents were promoters and 20% were detractors – you netted out at a score of 30. The higher the score the better.

NPS we were told would accurately predict a company’s ability to impress customers, turn customers into advocates, and -- in turn -- become an indicator of potential business growth. Scientific proof that this simple metric was ultimately more powerful and meaningful than any other management theory about customer satisfaction, customer retention, passion, loyalty or …well anything. So simple even a CEO could follow it ;-^)

And so the market embraced the theory. From all corners of the world. Heavyweights like GE (Real Estate division) Philips, HSBC, IBM (Enterprise Content Management), LEGO, Enterprise Car Rental, Intuit, Schwabb, American Express, Microsoft and others.

A simple approach, developed by respected accreditted professionals, endorsed by a world class university adopted by companies. What’s so bad about any of this?

The Questions:
Cracks in the foundation started to develop because of the lack of support to the contentions. Namely that the NPS was not a strong predictor, that there was evidense of research bias in the support used to substantiate the NPS and that the ACSI was not uncorrelated with firm growth..

“We find no support for the claim that Net Promoter is the ‘single most reliable indicator of a company’s ability to grow.’ The clear implication is that managers have adopted the Net Promoter metric for tracking growth on the basis of the belief that solid science underpins the findings and that it is superior to other metrics. However, our research suggests that such presumptions are erroneous. The consequences are the potential misallocation of resources as a function of erroneous strategies guided by Net Promoter on firm performance, company value, and shareholder wealth.”

Source: Timothy Keiningham et al. July 2007 A Longitudinal Examination of Net Promoter and Firm Revenue Growth

Other studies, other experts, opinion leaders, bloggers (see below) added their voices to the boisterous cacophony – worthy of the NYSE trading floor on a black bear day.

Undaunted, NPS supporters countered (see below) with their own assertions the NPS being as good as more complex measures and for the most part avoiding any direct discussions surrounding the statistical annomalies brought forward by Keiningham.

In this quote, Dr. Masden acknowledges being part of the team at the London School of Economics that vetted the NPS Score and asserts its ongoing validity as a reliable method of linking customer loyalty to growth.

"As far as the current debate goes, anyone who has read the information being disseminated from the “anti-Net Promoter” camp quickly comes to the realisation that the one Net Promoter question is, at the very least, just as good as more complex proprietary measures, that are tough to translate to the average executive and employee. But that leaves me questioning: why are we hung up on the measurement? The real conversation needs to be about how to get an organisation to be customer-centric and what that can mean for a company’s future”

Source: Clickadvisor.com on Sept 17 Net Promoter: the ultimate debate on customer loyalty

The Stalemate:

There is too much of an industry and ‘cult’ established around the NPS for it to dissapear on the basis of the allegations laid against them. In defence and defiance they point out that we are all ultimately pursuing the same path. True.

One can argue that the NPS may have accelerated the customer centricity movement, the other important benefit is that in its simplicity it has refocussed the dialogue on using metrics which can be widely disseminated and easily understood. Well in the words of Tim Keiningham

“ I too believe that loyalty consultants and researchers have over-complicated the message (and the analyses) with more advanced statistics than it took to get the Apollo space missions to the moon. It makes it impossible for management to understand, communicate, and rally support. This is ridiculous!”

The Ultimate Decision:
Believe it or not up to this point was the easy part. The hard part is deciding for yourself what happens next.

Will there ever be one metric to fit all needs? Highly improbable – and any contenders will not be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims. Instead of waiting for the new simple metric, we must continue to move forward with as simplified a system we can devise, implement and gain compliance with.

There are many competing schools of thought (Customer Experience Management, CRM, Loyalty/Continuity, Value Drivers, Image, WoM) reflecting the different successful business models/brands in the market.

To understand which approach will work best for your brand you must identify three things:

1. who your profitable customers are

2. what kind of relationship your profitable customers wish to have with your brand
a.Share of Wallet: the traditional CRM-centric make me a compelling (price/promotional) offer and I’ll buy it from you (or perhaps your competitors) – a brand relationship centered on the transaction.
b.Share of Mind: the traditional marketing promotions/communications approach – focussing on the key value proposition – a rational based brand relationship.
c.Share of Heart: Customer Experience Management – How people feel about the brand experience. Experience seen as a price mitigator and continuity reinforcer – an emotion based brand relationship.
d.Share of Life: How customers see the brand as a longer term partner for their category requirements, solutions and corporate/sustainability responsibility – an ‘adult/mature’ brand relationship.

3. within the relationship type identify the activities the enterprise must do to instill the longer-term repeat purchase pattern it seeks.

The key in my opinion is instead of defining your brand as an advocate of a particular ‘school of thought’ and then trying to mold your customers to fit within that model, we must instead look and manage this from the customer’s perspective. Therefore come to recognize the ALL of these relationship types exist simultaneously among different groups of your customers. What and how you communicate will be best served by understanding the type of customer they are first and from there make the ultimate decision as to how to relate and evolve with your customers.

Cheers
Miro

Suggested Reading:
NPS Adovcates:
The Ultimate Question. Driving Good Profits and True Growth. Fred Reicheld

www.satmetrix.com

www.netpromoter.com

Dr. Laura Brooks’s – VP Satmetrix latest blog posting

The Satmetrix white paper describing the research

Research conducted by the London School of Economics

Dr. Marsden from Clickadvisor.com on Sept 17 Net Promoter: the ultimate debate on customer loyalty

NPS Contrarians
Loyalty Myths: Hyped Strategies That Will Put You Out of Business and Proven Tactics That Really Work, Tim Keiningham, Terry Varga, Lerzan Aksoy, Henri Wallard

A Longitudinal Examination of Net Promoter and Firm Revenue Growth

The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation, and Share-of-Wallet

January 2007 Maritz Research White Paper

COLLOQUY magazine article

Do ya DIGG?

Fifteen of the world’s largest interactive marketing firms were recently asked which emerging technologies will have the greatest impact on the future of their design practices. The results put forth in a Forrester Research study were recently released in a report entitled "The Emerging Technologies That Matter Most to Interactive Agencies". The results, although not surprising, give marketers a heads up on where to focus their efforts.

Mobile Devices made the top of the list, as being the most important area of focus and growth for interactive agencies. All you have to do is look around to get a sense of how influential mobile marketing can be. From sponsored shows like American Idol, where voters text in their vote for the candidate they want to win, to grassroots experiential mobile campaigns, mobile is here to stay and is increasing in influence and reach.

Online Video was next on the “what matters most” list. It’s no secret that viral video campaigns can be highly effective. Look at the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, or the Philips Shave Everywhere campaign. These are hugely successful examples of how a strong video campaign can launch a brand into super stardom. Another CNN YouTube debate has now been scheduled for just after Thanksgiving, proving further that video is a beloved medium for the masses.

AJAX was another area of importance for interactive marketers, topping the RIA list, beating out Flash. Next month the AJAX World Conference & Expo will take place in Santa Clara and is being touted the i-technology conference of the year. In less than 18 months, the AJAX World event has grown from a single day seminar to a 4 day international conference.

Social Networking technology naturally made the list. Internet apps like Facebook and DIGG are changing the way we interact on the internet and demonstrating our willingness as a culture to share and exchange information freely. A new social networking site called Sk*rt was launched this week, which is in essence a DIGG of sorts for women. The site, which was launched by four female bloggers, is a social ranking platform that acts as a portal for women to discover cool ideas, articles, information, and products that are female relevant.

Marketers are already discovering that Social Networking campaigns don’t follow the same traditional marketing protocol. Successful campaigns in this arena mean developing a personal intimate relationship with the end users and allowing them to have a voice, which can sometimes be scary for marketers, but gives brands a more human face resulting in a deeper connection.

With all of these emerging technologies floating around in the ever-changing world of marketing, it’s a daunting (but necessary) task to keep on top of the trends that are shaping our world. Even if you are focusing on just one of these four areas, you are on the right track.

Pass it on

Who says brands are created in a boardroom and are limited to product or service? A brand is an experience represented by a collection of images and ideas. A brand could even be a person.

This blog is dedicated to a brand named Gavin Michael Booth. Some of you may have already heard of Gavin and the work he is doing in the social media world, some may have seen his films. What you may not know is that Gavin's "brand" is taking off - mostly through word-of-mouth communications and social networking.

Gavin’s latest project is called “How many days”. His mission is to meet 12 of the Hollywood professionals that have inspired him in his career thus far. The selected 12 includes: Steven Spielberg, Kevin Smith, Jimmy Eat World, Zach Braff, Tom Anderson, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, Johnny Depp and Harry Knowl.

How is Gavin promoting his brand to the selected 12? Each day, Gavin will send a new video blog to his online community until he meets all 12 people on his list. In order to promote his brand and current project, he's relying on word-of-mouth, targeting key influencers through social media. He's already been asked to appear on various radio shows and local television networks. The message is landing in the right hands or on the right ears. Gavin has already successfully set up interviews with two of the twelve after only 8 days. To learn more about Gavin’s mission, go to his website, 'how many days' or visit his MySpace page.

Pass it on.

Why isn't radio advertising better?

I had an iPod adapter installed in my new car when I got it last April. Not too hard to believe, I suppose. But the reason I did it is because radio advertising does a better job of annoying me than it does of inspiring me.

Exhibit A: Sean from Spence Diamonds. I suppose there is something to be said for the fact that I even know the guy's name and I know he's the spokesperson for Spence Diamonds. But I would never go into a Spence Diamonds store because I find their commercials so off-putting. Nails on a chalkboard is the only way to describe it.

Exhibit B: Christine McGee from Sleep Country. Both of my kids sing the jingle when it comes on the radio. And admittedly, Sleep Country is a proven marketing success story. But I literally turn the channel every time one of her spots comes on.

Exhibit C: Just about everything else you can hear between the music and the inane DJ banter. Everything just seems to lack any creativity or originality.

In our all-staff status meeting last Monday morning, one of our creative folks presented just a few radio spots from the recent Crystal Awards -- the best in radio advertising. Every spot was better and more creative than the next. Funny, engaging, creative in their use of music, creative in their use of sound effects, creative conceptually.

Terry O'Reilly from Pirate Radio is a guru of Canadian Radio advertising. He speaks brilliantly on the topic and is perceived to be one of the best in the business. Where are his disciples? I'm sure they're out there. Perhaps I don't listen to the radio enough. But there is no denying if they are out there working, they are the exception, not the rule.

The Crystal Awards prove that creative work can be done for radio. O'Reilly himself has said it is the medium that offers the most untapped potential in that it is inexpensive to produce, it can be turned around quickly, and it allows you to be creative if you have it in you to be.

I am seriously challenged to think of one recent radio spot that had me thinking, wow, now THAT'S using the full potential of the channel.

Can you think of one? Here's the criteria: Entertaining. Memorable (spot and product). Smart.

Bill the means, deliver the ends?

Last week I traveled to New York City to participate in a great discussion on the future of Creativity in Advertising, hosted by Corbis.

Jan Leth, CCO for Ogilvy & Mather in New York, shared the following anecdote:

In honour of their 45th anniversary, Six Flags Theme Parks decided to give away 45,000 free tickets to celebrate the big day. Ogilvy's creative team received the brief, complete with the typical fair: some ads, a promotional website, banners, etc. Of his own accord, the assigned Creative Director posted the event on Craigslist and five hours later the 45,000 tickets were gone.

It's hard to understand how to react.

My gut reaction: the Creative Director did exactly what they should have done. They looked beyond the media, put their expertise into a very creative solution and got the job done.

On the other hand, advertising is typically billed by the means and not by the end. How do you bill hundreds of thousands of dollars for a five minute execution?

Food for thought as the industry continues to shift.

Do we bill the means and deliver the ends, or do we bill the ends, whatever the means?

What do you think?

Why there will never be a Web 3.0

In 2004, O’Reilly Media played host to a series of conferences which birthed a notion that forever changed the way we think about the online space. Scribbled on a piece of paper and taped to a door, the topic for discussion read: "Web 2.0".

The result? Talks that have continued to inspire the web, the marketing and, most recently, the advertising worlds. Revolving around companies such as Google, Amazon, eBay and more, the seeds of Web 2.0 were sown on the core principles of the aforementioned "dotcoms," which grew, survived and even thrived through the bubble burst of the late 1990s.

Some of the notions which were captured are summarized below.

Web 2.0:

1. is an attitude not a technology.
2. incorporates the notions of "the Long Tail."
3. realizes the content is the brand.
4. is in a state of "perpetual beta".
5. supports software which gets better the more people use it.
6. often grants the right to remix with "some rights reserved".
7. tries to provide the feeling of "play".
8. allows granular addressability of content.
9. is emergent; user behaviour is not predetermined.
10. offers a rich user experience.
11. trusts the user (radical!).

Perpetual beta suggests that these principles, and all those that may follow, are simply extensions of the original notion. In other words, Web 2.0 does not mark a place in time, pre- or post- bubble; instead it simply offers a label for these proven principles and encourages exploration from there.

To suggest that your company offers or sells "Web 2.0" products or services may be technically true, but it sounds terribly naïve. In effect, you're simply announcing that you build web properties that work. Shouldn't that be a given? Could you imagine a car dealer selling a car by saying, "now with engines that run!"

To sell "Web 2.0" as a product suggests there was a "Web 1.0." To say a website is "Web 1.0" is like saying that product is failed or doomed to. So, if you sell "Web 2.0" as a service, are you suggesting to your client that he/she may opt out for the Web 1.0 version?

This brings us to Web 2.1, Web 2.5, Web 3.0 and all the ridiculous version numbers people are tossing around nowadays. I wish these principles were never labeled Web 2.0 because it implies (without further understanding) that there can be a Web 3.0. A property that is in "perpetual beta" does not allow for "versioning". If only that note scribbled at O’Reilly’s conference read "Web That Works" or "Social Media" or "Schicki-micki" or anything to prevent the name from being harvested and exploited by misinformed marketers as is being done today.

This basic misunderstanding has led to many headaches for those trying to develop web properties that work. Lacking a workable lexicon, it's difficult to get the concept past two very dangerous audiences:

- The first audience has no clue what Web 2.0 means, often rejecting the concept as "too risky". (Creating websites that will actually work is "too risky"?)

- The second audience understands exactly what Web 2.0 means, but dislike the term because the first audience has bastardised it - and who can blame them?

Since schicki-micki is too hard to spell anyway, I propose we move on from the designation of Web 2.0 (and thereby eliminating its unfounded sequel Web 3.0), and stick to a common term like "internet," or websites that "work". If you continue to insist on utilizing a new term, consider "social media".

The Power of Social Media

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you’ve heard of the power of social media. How many of you reading this blog have a MySpace or YouTube membership? Marketers are all trying to figure out how they can take advantage of the social media phenomena. How can they use this medium to sell their brand, promote their product or engage consumers? I think many of us are missing a very important point. Social media gives people a voice; a voice that can be heard by millions. What we choose to do with this voice is as important as the medium itself.
One of my MySpace friends is using his voice for altruistic means. Gavin Michael Booth is spreading the word about his friend Andi’s two year old daughter, Mila, who is dying from a brain tumor. Gavin is using MySpace and YouTube as a tool to generate awareness about Mila and to assist in raising money for her funeral. I hope by doing so, Gavin will generate enough buzz to attract the “traditional media” who will hopefully profile what he is doing to help Mila and further support his quest.

Have a look at what Gavin is doing for a very special two year old.

What is Direct Response Anyway?

Too often old attitudes about what constitutes Direct Response (or Direct Marketing) drive business decisions. As a marketing community, we should be opening our minds more to the possibilities presented by channels beyond what is thought of as traditional direct marketing. And I know what you're thinking. Pretty obvious. But I've heard too many clients and agency folks say they don't believe in Direct Marketing, then ask for a banner ad to be produced. What is banner advertising if not (admittedly) a hybrid of mass and yes, direct? Are you not intended to feel a certain way about the product or service promoted in the banner (mass), then click on it (direct)? It doesn't get any more Direct than that. Rogers On-Demand? Direct. Text message advertising? Direct. Email blasts? Direct. Viral video. You bet! Heck, even this blog to which you're hopefully going to post something. Yup. Direct. If you're asking for an action, regardless of the channel, it's Direct. Push the envelope...over and make room for direct thinking in your business plans. It's time to catch up to the way the world has moved.

Apropos…

Three interesting articles I've stumbled on which are apropos to discussions that have taken place on this blog…

CNN Money considers Viral Ads: It’s an Epidemic, touting viral marketing “the most interesting marketing trend of the moment”.

Using WebMD and the New York Times as examples, on iMedia, Simms Jenkins presents Ten Ways to Minimize E-mail Unsubscribes

And Target Marketing has an interesting article about how to get the most out of your paid search engine marketing (SEM) budget.

Enjoy!