Digital Footprint

Digital footprint has been on my mind since I have been giving you guys feedback on your projects. This was emailed to me, and I thought that I would share this with you not so that you can apply for the grant (which of course you are welcome to do), but as an example of how valuable these skills are and how little companies know how to do effective digital marketing. Note the price tage = $1,000,000 per year (details to be discussed).



As background, NineSigma is in the innovation brokerage business. A company (the remains anonymous) solicits RFP (request for propsal) for an idea that requires a significant amount of creativity.



By the way, I probably will not apply for this, even though 1 mil per year could pay for a lot of post-docs!

Let's Talk Metrics, or What to do with TMI

One of the problems with social media metrics is there's just too much information available. In class today I mentioned a handful of links:

Social Media Metrics Tools

View more presentations from Devon Smith.

But where do you stop? Which metrics are the most important? Before you start talking strategy, it's helpful to get a lay of the land. We've talked about this as a "social media footprint," and I tend to like that image. You're looking for the digital footprints of a brand, collect enough of them and you can start to see the (social media) path they've chosen for themselves. Here are some of the metrics that made sense for Vocalo.org:

Social Media Footprint

View more documents from Devon Smith.

But once you know what you've got, how do you know where to spend your effort and monetary resources? One way is to create an index. Marc Schiller mentioned this. Basically, you want to give concrete values to both your efforts (things you post), and your impact (things other people post). I've worked on two different indicies, one for Facebook, and one for Twitter. It's a much longer report, so just check out page 5-10 for facebook, and pages 23-25 for Twitter.

Social Media in Theatre

View more documents from Devon Smith.

This was an example across firms in a single industry, you could also think of looking at a single firm across time.

Good luck!

30 Tips for Using Social Media in Your Business

30 Tips for Using Social Media in Your Business

How to Use Social Networking Sites to Drive Business

How to Use Social Networking Sites to Drive Business

WhoseTube? (monetizing social media)

The lead singer of OK Go, Damian Kulash, Jr., has an interesting op-ed in today's NYT that raises some hard questions about "monetizing" social media in the music industry.

For those of you who didn't catch it, OK Go's homemade YouTube video for "Here It Goes Again" was one of the hottest viral videos of 2006 and essentially launched that band's career. Many of those views came from blogs and websites that promoted the video by embedding it on their page. The band knows it, and their record label, EMI, knows it.

Unfortunately, EMI is now preventing YouTube from enabling the embedding capability of OK Go's newest videos. (otherwise, I would embed one or two to the post for ya'll to see). So, no one can post OK Go's videos to a blog or facebook feed or whatever.

EMI argues they are doing this because YouTube won't pay them any royalties when the video is viewed from non-youtube.com websites. Kulash argues that the economic benefits of wide-spread viralization of their videos would far outweigh the lost revenues from those not required to visit youtube.com to view them. I tend to agree.

But whose to blame here really? How has YouTube not been able to monetize embedded videos successfully? (and if they can't, why do I still see those annoying ads in every YouTube video I watch?). And why is EMI so close-minded when they saw the success that viral videos brought their clients 4 years ago?

Moreover, is the progress of successfully monetizing social media actually limiting the opportunities available for users to those which can be successfully monetized at all?

How Social Media Has Changed Us...

This post from Mashable is really interesting for anyone who has not already seen it.

In business school, it's all too easy to think of social media as just impacting the world of marketing but its influence runs much deeper than that.

I also strongly agree with the article's strong position against social media critics and their reasoning.

Monday Night Social Media Event at Black Bear

I got passed along to me info about an event run my New Media Haven. They are bringing in two guest speakers and are giving social media people time to network. It looks like there will be a lot of people attending. The event runs from 6-8. I may be there for the tail end.

To sign up and get more info, you can go to:

http://newmediahaven.eventbrite.com/

Simple Indulgence - Sporcle

NERD ALERT!!!


Sporcle is both the best and worst website that I have found on the internet.

I found it by chance when I was looking up Thomas and Friends.
It let me unleash my pent up geography, pop culture, and random knowledge.
But it didn't stop there. It was like the Energizer bunny. It kept going and going and going...
Now I can stay up until 4am each night trying different puzzles.

Sporcle.com <-- try it if you dare!!!

Chad Ocho Cinco: A Personal Branding Case Study

Marc Schiller, founder of Electric Artists, talks about the proliferation of personalized brands and the evolution of social media. The democratization of information has changed not only the marketing landscape. He referenced the idea of walking into a job interview telling the hiring manager across the desk from you:

“If you hire me, I’m bringing 20,000 people (read: twitter followers) with me. How will you handle that?”

A great example of this is NFL player, Chad Ocho Cinco. In the NFL, players enter into legal employment contracts that teams are authorized to break at any point. This leaves these players at the mercy of their employer with little recourse. So, to look at the current example as a Human Resources case study is more relevant than it seems.

Chad’s last name, Ocho Cinco, is a Spanish translation of 8-5, his uniform number. Known for countless league violations, he was fined during the 2006 season for altering the name on his jersey to read “OCHO CINCO” instead of “JOHNSON,” his legal name at the time. In the offseason, he legally changed his name to Chad Ocho Cinco in order to circumvent the NFL’s policy. Now you can see it in stat sheets, commentators refer to him as Ocho Cinco and his jersey reads the same.

He has always created a spectacle with his charisma and publicity stunts, which he has transitioned into social media. Currently, Chad has a UStream channel with 7,000 followers, a Motorola-sponsored Facebook fan page with over 15,000 followers, nearly 750,000 fans on Twitter under the handle, @OGOchocinco, and his very own iPhone app.

On Twitter, he has been commonly known to invite all of his followers to meetups across the country for a free dinner or a movie. He has also responded directly to fans that reached out while their friend was on his deathbed or just to get a pep talk. To reinforce the point, Motorola sponsored a 1,200-ticket giveaway to a home Bengals game in order to prevent a regional broadcast blackout of the game. He promoted this heavily on Twitter and was able to ensure the game was televised in the Cincinnati area.

What makes this so relevant to Schiller’s point is to look at Chad Ocho Cinco for what he is: an employee of the Cincinatti Bengals, and ultimately the NFL. The NFL established a strict social media policy for all employees and even fired some due to violations. When the Cincinnati Bengals were the main characters on HBO’s original series “Hard Knocks,” Ocho Cinco was temporarily banned from Twitter, UStream, Facebook and any other social media platforms to communicate with his fans.




Most recently, Ocho Cinco partnered with Motorol organized a full-blown media effort to cover the Super Bowl and enlisted other NFL players to join his OCNN press team. His and his team’s presence at Super Bowl media day received just as much, if not more, media coverage than the athletes actually competing in the game.

Sports figures and celebrities are clear prototypes for building a personal brand since it has become standard procedure for them, and Chad Ocho Cinco has mastered the art. The gift and the curse for the Cincinatti Bengals is that this guy has built his personal brand to the point where it is engaging fans at a higher level and undoubtedly increasing the fan loyalty to the NFL. However, as Ocho Cinco walks into the office of a team’s Director of Player Personnel, he can say, “If you hire me, I’m bringing 1 million people. How are you going to handle that?”

If they can continue to effectively manage the risk, then it is an extremely valuable asset. If they can’t, then it could become a toxic liability. For now, there’s only upside because Chad brings the loyalty of a million or more followers to the Bengals’ fan base. If I were a betting man, I’d wager my money that he retires in Cincinnati on that point alone.

When Expertise is required

I was reflecting on a comment Dina made in class yesterday that for doctors, the best referrals are in fact loyal customers, whereas for the Trap Rock Brewery amateurs were better. One clear difference between someone who chooses restaurants and someone who chooses medications or treatments is the amount of expertise and experience required to make a judgment.

For restaurants anyone who had a one time positive experience may choose to give a positive evaluation and that evaluation would for the most part seem considered credible. Even on websites like Yelp, we receive what we perceive to be credible feedback from people we have never met or whose reputation we are unfamiliar with. So in these situations, loose networks can lead to new referrals.

For doctors, however, expertise and experience must exceed beyond a single exposure. Drugs and treatments must not only go through an FDA approval process, but even after legal vetting, still undergo in office trials and get validation through conference presentations, or repeated doctor experiences. In this case, vouching for a product that turns out not to be credible has higher cost, so a harder bar to cross to get referrals, and since doctors are looking for people whose opinions they can honestly trust, rather than people who may be indirectly benefiting from either the product manufacturer or from the increased credibility of being perceived as an expert. So compared to restaurant customers, doctors are more wary and risk averse.

It would be interesting to determine whether there is a spectrum between customer risk aversion and product complexity to the amount of expertise required in a network referral. For instance between pharmaceuticals and restaurant visits are consumer electronics; some expertise is helpful, but it's not life or death - a high complexity product that doesn't automatically generate risk aversion. Another is vacations where product complexity is low, but where people are very concerned about having a bad experience.

Great example of a successful viral ad and lessons to be learned from it

The discussion about the Mountain Dew ad campaign and in particular the debate surrounding viral ad choice got me thinking about viral ads that have made an impression on me. I chose the 'Mock Opera' ad because it reminded me a little of a wildly successful ad in the UK which is known as being the ad campaign that really brought Cadbury's chocolate a great deal of success. It continues to have an impact today and the gorilla character has become something of an icon. A link to the ad is here.

I thought it related to the Mock Opera ad in several ways. Firstly, the use of a similarly older but popular song is a clever way of reaching older audiences (those familiar with the song) and new, younger audiences (through the character and the iconic song). Secondly, the character is fun and memorable, as the Dew Dudes are meant to be.

Some other facts about the ad:

• Part of a GBP6.2million campaign that began with screenings on the TV and in cinemas
• This grew into a billboard, print media and event sponsorship presence
• The premiere of the ad was shown during the final of Big Brother UK which was watched by some 14% of the British population (we like classy TV in the UK, clearly)
• Like with the Mountain Dew ads, it was broadcast at a major sporting event - it was the final ad shown during the 2007 rugby world cup (which England lost to South Africa...we do not talk about this...)
• It went viral shortly after airing on the TV - the youtube version received 500,000 hits just one week after launch. At the end of 2007 - 4 months in - it had been viewed approximately 6.7 million times
• Over 70 Facebook groups were then set up in tribute to the gorilla character
• A whole host of online parodies followed, only adding to the ad's perception in the minds of the consumer
• It then aired in Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand where the song was occasionally adapted (eg. 'Total Eclipse of the Heart' in Australia) depending, presumably, on the market's affinity for Phil Collins...
• The campaign won a host of ad awards and market research suggested that 20% of the public viewed the brand more favourably following the launch

Key elements of the ad's success to my mind include the quirky character, popular yet older song and its originality/quirkiness in general. I think music is a key factor in viral campaigns due to its ability to transcend cultural and demographic boundaries. The parallels with 'Mock Opera' are therefore clear to me.

Social Media and Cost Cutting ?

Social Media is growing and impacting all domains of business. What I found interesting is how social media can help in decreasing cost of customer service, and thus saving the firm valuable funds.

A huge percentage of customer service calls result from unaware customers and not from technical or software issues. Increasingly however, in the wake of long customer wait lines and repeated touch points, many customers (like me!!) have started looking at online forums and customer reverts to solve some problems without approaching the customer service. This has a positive, and a negative impact. The positive impact is in lower costs of customer service, while the negative impact is that the customer has one less point of touch with the firm, and therefore one less opportunity to reach out with new products, sales and upgrades.

Any sales coming from social media networks will also perhaps be at lower costs of acquisitions, therefore increasing bottom-line. I am not sure, however, if there are exact ways to measure the indirect impact on costs through social media.

Maybe this is why firms have started regularly visiting online forums, chats and other social media networks to access product response and what customers are saying about the service. Its a great opportunity to get a real picture of the response, at a much lower cost than focus groups and sample distributions.

Our discussion about the crude "Labor of Love" concept from the Mountain Dew case having viral potential reminded me of a recent case of a similarly irreverent agency-produced ad that was intended to go viral. The "Scuzzy Suds" ad from Method was meant to raise awareness about the company's People Against Dirty campaign (itself a nifty application of social media), but its humor may have gone a bit too far. Watch it here and see what you think.

The ad apparently got 700k views and a five star rating on YouTube in its first week, but was pulled after a couple weeks due to a critical mass of highly negative responses on Method's website, possibly triggered by a Shakesville blog posting entitled "Today in Rape Culture."

My immediate response to the ad was that it had the potential to be a great concept but went too far by having the woman go forward with her shower. I also thought that Method's target market--youngish, forward-thinking women--would tend to react negatively to it. To me, that would make it a bad campaign, regardless of how many times it is viewed, or how funny the average guy finds it.

What do the youngish, forward-thinking women in the class think?

The Mythology of YouTube

If we want to know why (and how) a video goes viral, the top 5 most watched YouTube videos are a potential place to start.

This past year was the first time YouTube took official note of the top 5, so the older lists are a little challenging to reconstruct:

In 2009, (excluding music videos which turn out to have the absolute highest numbers) that's
1. Susan Boyle - Britain's Got Talent (120+ million views, 7:08)
2. David After Dentist (37+ million views, 1:59)
3. JK Wedding Entrance Dance (33+ million views, 5:10)
4. New Moon Movie Trailer (31+ million views, 1:49)
5. Evian Roller Babies (27+ million views, 1:01)

And in 2008:
1. Charlie Bit My Finger (~110 million views, 0:56)
2. Evolution of Dance (109+ million views, 6:00)
3. Achmed the Dead Terrorist (~80 million views, 9:48)
4. Jizz in My Pants (~20 million views, 2:33)
5. Britain's Got Talent's Connie Talbot (~20 million views, 4:57)

Finally in 2007:
1. Battle in the Kruger (22+ million views, 8:24)
2. South Carolina Miss Teen USA (20+ million views, 0:48)
3. Chris Crocker Defends Britney Spears (14+ million views, 2:43)
4. Esmee Denters sings Justin Timberlake (13+ million views, 2:42)
5. Tay Zonday sings Chocolate Rain (12+ million views, 4:53)


What sticks out?

Sources
User generated (7)
TV clip (7)
Advertising (1)

Clearly advertisers haven't broken the secret code to viral video success.

Content
Music-related (7)
Intended to be Funny (4)
Other (4)

With music videos capturing the absolute highest numbers, American Idol/Britain's Got Talent dominating traditional media, and music being featured in the majority of other top viewed videos, it stands to reason that viewers find music compelling.

Length
0-2 minutes (5)
2-4 minutes (3)
4-6 minutes (3)
6-8 minutes (2)
8-10 minutes (2)

YouTube caps upload length at 10 minutes, and the number of top viewed videos does decline the higher the run time is, but there are videos in every category. Thus, a video doesn't have to be short to be popular.

View Counts
2007 (12-22 million)
2008 (20-110 million)
2009 (27 to 120 million)

As YouTube's popularity has grown, so too have the view counts of the most popular videos, though there were fewer break out hits of 2009. Hard to tell if view counts rise because there are simply more viewers, or if a video actually has to work harder to break the top 5.

Gender
Men (6)
Women (4)
Groups (5)

Not statistically significant differences.

But there's a problem with this kind of analysis. Like we learned in problem framing, you can't just look at the positive cases, you also need to look at the negative cases. In short, YouTube is filled with crap that never gets seen. Much of it is funny, features music, and stays short, yet never gets a view count past 3 digits. So what gives?

The research I've done in Theatres on YouTube arrived at the same conclusion. And Tech Crunch recently found that the average YouTube video will

• Get 500 views
• 25% of those will happen in the first 4 days
• Only the first 30-60 seconds will be watched
• 55% of videos are discovered (the remaining 45% users were actively searching for)
  

But I tend to think the leap from 500 to 5 million is based on how you promote the video. Are you tweeting a bit.ly link out to your thousands of followers? Is the video embedded on your facebook page? Is the video well-tagged and clearly named on YouTube?

Unfortunately, there's little indication that high view counts translate to higher sales, though this webinar is pretty rad.

Until we can measure it better, it's even harder to predict success. But with Video SEO finally coming of age, maybe we'll finally figure out how to track how videos go viral so we can better hypothesize why.

And with the rise of non profits on YouTube, maybe it'll actually start to matter.

Wrong post in wrong blog..admin please delete..