0
Used Car Salesman

I occasionally post subjects with the subtitle, “I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.”  The subtitle pays homage to one of my favorite sources of movie quotes, The Princess Bride (you can view this particular quote on YouTube).

I’ll be conducting an inbound marketing workshop at the ISA Marketing & Sales Summit in a couple of weeks. We’ve just launched a blogging contest that is giving away an iPod Touch. Although I’m judging and not eligible to win, I’m linking this article to help spread the word.

Long Live the Internet

Browser content (i.e. HTML on port 80) now accounts for less than 25% of all Internet traffic.

Your entire Internet marketing strategy may be based on a mirage. Many companies are focused on search engine optimization and pay per click campaigns. This is all well and good as long as Google remains the gatekeeper of the Internet. But here’s the thing; there’s a new sheriff in town and the entire 18 year old ecosystem of the world wide web is in danger. This is according to Wired Magazine who today published “The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet.”

The premise of this article is that we are willingly giving up the freedom and openness of the traditional world wide web in favor of a more closed, less free version; apps. Wired argues that like the rail system and electrical grid before it, the Internet is entering a period of consolidation and domination by a few power brokers.

Over the past few years, one of the most important shifts in the digital world has been the move from the wide-open Web to semiclosed platforms that use the Internet for transport but not the browser for display. It’s driven primarily by the rise of the iPhone model of mobile computing, and it’s a world Google can’t crawl, one where HTML doesn’t rule. And it’s the world that consumers are increasingly choosing, not because they’re rejecting the idea of the Web but because these dedicated platforms often just work better or fit better into their lives (the screen comes to them, they don’t have to go to the screen).

Now. let’s keep in mind that Wired is not entirely unbiased in this debate. They and their publisher, Condé Nast , have put a large portion of their eggs into Steve Jobs’ basket. But to paraphrase the late Kurt Cobain, “Just because you’re biased doesn’t mean they’re not right.”

Tilting at Windmills

Don QuixoteWe laughed at Prince when he said it, but this article should make every marketer’s blood run cold. If our usage of the Internet is indeed moving from open, HTML-based web sites to the walled gardens of applications and streaming content, it means that search engines are indexing an increasingly small piece of the pie. They simply aren’t the ubiquitous arbiter they once were, since much of the Internet’s activity is happening outside of their field of view. Basing an entire Internet marketing strategy on search engines is like looking at a windmill and seeing a dragon.

That doesn’t mean that you should halt your search engine marketing tactics. It does, however, mean that it should be a shrinking share of your overall marketing strategy. The question then becomes, “What fills that vacuum?”

Gift Marketing

Moore’s Law has resulted in bandwidth and storage costs that are becoming too cheap to meter. This enabled the Web 2.0 sites we’re all using today and led to the emergence of social networking. Consequently, we’re able to scale our peer groups and get increasing amounts of information and recommendations from trusted sources instead of advertisements and algorithms. The problem for marketers is that much of this takes place inside the walled gardens of Facebook. As the old saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

And so we have brands jumping into social media. However, one of the problems they’re grappling with is the juxtaposition of norms; economic versus social. They’re not used to this whole social thing and many of them are trying to transplant the old advertising models that were based on economic norms into the world of social networking.

Used Car SalesmanThink of it this way…  You’re having a dinner party and invite some close friends. Your doorbell rings and it’s a smarmy, uninvited used car salesman. He lets himself in and starts denigrating the car in your driveway and listing all of the special deals they have. While this behavior may have been tolerated on his lot, it certainly doesn’t belong at a dinner party and you kick him out. Imagine, instead, your best friends call ahead of time and ask if they can bring this really cool guy who was great fun at their last barbecue. He shows up and in the course of normal conversation finds out you’re having trouble with your headlights. He takes a look and shows you how to adjust their alignment and fixes the problem. You find out later (from your friends, not him) that he works at a car dealership and you commit to visiting him when it comes time for you to upgrade your vehicle.

In this new trust economy, companies are going to have to start thinking much more in terms of social norms. Even though the name of the game is making money, they are going to have to follow a different set of rules than they’re used to following. The first rule of inbound marketing is creating compelling content that people want to share. The secret to creating this content is thinking of it as a gift.

Is repackaging your brochure into a blog post a gift? Not so much.
Is showing up unannounced polite? Definitely not.
Do gratuitous, insincere compliments build trust? Not exactly.

Search engine optimization is certainly not dead. But as Hans and Fanz said, “Hear me now und believe me later,” that giant sucking sound you hear in your marketing strategy is the vacuum being created as search shrinks. You need to be prepared to fill it with content marketing that focuses on building new customer relationships socially.

  • Share/Bookmark

Continue Reading

High Five for Week Ending 17-Jan

Published on 17. Jan, 2010 by Jon DiPietro in High Five

0
High Five for Week Ending 17-Jan
Weekly High Five lists the most interesting, compelling, and/or useful links of each week.

Weekly High Five lists the most interesting, compelling, and/or useful links of each week.

This was a tough week to select five stories; there was lots of tech news worthy of mention.  In the end, it was three articles about Facebook and two about growing up geeky.

#5: The Children of Cyberspace: Old Fogies by Their 20s

This was fresh take on the “old news” of obsolescence.  We all know that each generation grows up under a different paradigm from its previous.  What’s changing is the definition of a “technology generation.”  We used to think (at least I did) of this as linear – that the gap between us and our parents is about the same as the one between us and  our kids.  The reality, however, is that this gap is growing and that behavioral differences (as influenced by technology adoption) that used be evident in age differences in the range of 15 to 20 years are now shrinking to as little as 5 to 10 years.  This will have profound implications on how businesses adapt their workplace environments and adjust their marketing paradigms.

Link: New York Times

#4: Darpa: U.S. Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

This story came out before the news of the major, sophisticated cyber attacks against Google, Adobe, and more than thirty other companies this week.  Many trade organizations are working to address a shortage of engineers that will provide workforce challenges in the manufacturing and critical infrastructure (water, wastewater, power, gas, etc…) sectors, and now we see concern growing over national security issues due to low enrollment in the computer sciences.

Link: Wired

#3: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over

This story has more moving parts and metaphors than a Rube Golberg contraption.  There is the minutia of Facebook’s user interface and the relative difficulty of setting up the privacy settings to one’s liking.  There are overarching principals of privacy versus transparency in a Web 2.0 world.  And then there is also the business argument of the degree to which Facebook can, should, and will continue to emulate Twitter.  My take tis that this sound a little bit like Zuckerberg trying to rationalize that Facebook’s evolving business strategy of transparency (read: search and advertising revenue) is all for the greater good.  Meh.

Link: ReadWriteWeb

#2: Twelve Steps To Creating A Bootylicious Facebook Page

John Haydon has a great series going right now on his blog, “Social media and inbound marketing for non-profits ,” but don’t think that the tips are only useful for those audiences.  This article, in particular, contains terrific tips any business or individual who wants to improve their Facebook fan page.  I’ve definitely learned a few tricks (and been reminded of a couple of outstanding items to be done).

Link: John Haydon dot com

#1: Facebook Releases Their Version Of Retweets As Twitterfication Continues

Normally I detest Facebook’s attempts at “Twitterfication” as this author describes it.  I use Facebook and Twitter for two different purposes and the number one difference between them is privacy.  When I want to interact with a private, closely-knit network I use Facebook. When I want an open, more transparent relationship I use Twitter.  Having said that, this new feature is a long-time coming and doesn’t erode that privacy I’m looking for in Facebook.  It does, however, make it easier to discover who the content generators are in your extended network and to find others you may wish to connect with and to spread your ideas more effectively.

Link: All Facebook

Feel free to provide your thoughts and/or contributions…

  • Share/Bookmark

Continue Reading

0
Presentation: Zen and Now
Death By PowerPoint

PowerPoint doesn't kill people, bad presentations kill people.

I used to think I was pretty good at creating presentations. I took a business communications class in graduate school and learned the same old rules; limit your fonts, three to seven bullet points, don’t read your slides, blah blah blah. I withstood others’ horrible presentations, invisibly smirking and silently mocking the 250 word novels slides with their horrifying color schemes and monotone, stammering presenter.  I congratulated myself on not being “that guy.”  But the truth is that I was just as guilty of Really Bad PowerPoint as anyone else.

Then I read Presentation Zen by Garr Reynolds and everything changed.  My goal in this blog post is nothing short of paying forward that same change, and so I’m using myself as a case study to show what my presentations used to look like, what they look like now, and what I aspire them to be in the future.

But before we go down that road, in case you’re dubious about whether or not really bad PowerPoint is a problem, here is a presentation that Guy Kawasaki put together that was used as the forward to Presentation Zen.

The Presenter As Storytellter

The number one lesson I’ve learned is that “slides do not a presentation make.”  Rather, they are simply a prop for the story you’re telling.  The following slide show contains a series of before and after shots from the same presentation, which I completely overhauled after reading Presentation Zen.  They illustrate the first major change; move the narrative off of the slides and into the oratory.

Once the presentation is transformed from a distraction to a storytelling prop, the burden of communication falls on the story itself.  Based on the recommendation in Presentation Zen, I also read “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive And Others Die.”  This indispensable book presents six principles that make stories “sticky.”  It’s invaluable to crafting messages of all sorts, not just creating presentations.  Whether writing an email, composing a blog post, or crafting a memo outlining your thoughts on your organization’s next mission statement this book will help you do it more effectively and memorably.  These six principles can be represented by the acronym “SUCCESs”:

  1. Simplicity
  2. Unexpectedness
  3. Concreteness
  4. Credibility
  5. Emotions
  6. Stories

The Presenter As Designer

Duh.  That’s the one word that best describes how I felt while reading Presentation Zen.  Reynolds eloquently and convincingly makes the case that design is important, poorly understood, and badly implemented (by and large).  Those were the “duh” moments, as I realized that those are all true and that I had never realized it or paid much attention previously.  But next came salvation, as basic design principles and techniques are presented that make it possible to learn how to improve design.  Imagine that – you can actually learn how to design!  Looking back, I can’t believe that design wasn’t part of the core curriculum for my engineering degree or any of the computer science tracks I’ve seen.  And now that we live in the age of Web 2.0 where we are all content producers, it seems to me that it should be required in all college programs.  But I digress.

Reynolds begins by stressing simplicity, balance, noise suppression, and space.  These are all related and as I look back on my old presentations it seems as though I was deliberately violating as many of these guidelines as possible on every slide.  Take the slide shown below, for example.  This is not simple at all; there are too many ideas at once and even the screen shot, while appropriate was still complex and distracting.  The layout is completely unbalanced and top-heavy.  The slide template is noisy with lines and the “ISA” logo implanted in the corner of every slide.  Finally, there is a small amount of empty space on the slide, but it is concentrated in one corner and looks more like something is missing.  They eye darts around this slide searching for meaning with no help provided from the design.

Bad Slide Design

My personal design renaissance has begun with what Reynolds calls “The Big Four:” contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity.  I’ll now provide examples from my own presentations on how I’ve implemented these principles.

Contrast 300x225 Presentation: Zen and NowThis slide uses contrast in two different ways.  The first is the color contrast between the dark gray background and the pure white text. The words jump off the page in way that bullets never can.  The second use of contrast is the emphasis of the words “interesting” and “boring” by changing the font size. For some reason we seem to be afraid to make things BIG enough or bold enough.
Repetition1 300x225 Presentation: Zen and NowOne of the central themes of this particular presentation was the abundance of free tools available on the Internet in our Web 2.0 world. Therefore, I made use of design repetition by placing the “Free” price tag graphic element on eight consecutive slides in the exact same spot. I also made sure to emphasize this in my delivery by asking the audience to guess how much each solution cost. Of course, the answer was the same and the audio and visual repetition made sure that this point would be driven home. Plus, the audience had fun with it.
Alignment 300x225 Presentation: Zen and NowAlignment stresses the importance of making objects appear as if they were placed in a particular place deliberately, rather than simply thrown anywhere there was space available. This slide aligns the letters of an acronym quite deliberately to show their relationship. While this is a good example of alignment, I’m not sure it’s a great example of contrast, balance, or noise. I’m sure there is a better way to present this idea, so I will keep tinkering.
Proximity 300x225 Presentation: Zen and NowThis title slide demonstrates the use of proximity.  The graphic and title are strongly related and so they are grouped together in close proximity.  My name, company, and position are also grouped together and separated from the title in order to distinguish and de-emphasize them.  You can also see elements of contrast and alignment in play here as well.

The Presenter As Heretic

Alas, as much as I believe all of this makes sense, it remains heresy to create a PowerPoint presentation that does not utilize the prescribed template or can’t be used as a handout.  If you look at most of my presentations now, they are completely useless without the presenter and that’s exactly as it should be.  Nonetheless, many conferences are still beholden to the same formula of “Email me your presentation three days in advance so that we can print them out.”  Adopting this approach means that you need to create your own handouts that contain the substance of your presentation and not just the props.  This all takes more work, but it’s worth it for you and your audience.  My recommendation is to write the document in Word, then upload it to Scribd (or Posterous or other similar service) so that you can embed it in web pages and blog posts and also increase your online visibility.
Leveraging Social Media & Internet Technology (Handout)

Looking Ahead

While my presentations are a night and day difference from what they used to be, the one thing for certain is that I still have a long way to go.  I’m continuing to hone my public speaking skills (which I still think are not very good) and currently enjoying “Confessions of a Public Speaker” by Scott Berkun.  I’m simultaneously thumbing through Nacy Duarte’s “Slide:ology,” which is not merely informative; it is incredibly beautiful, mesmerizing, and inspirational.  I now look upon each public speaking engagement with excitement and optimism of not merely meeting the challenge, but improving each and every time.  I’m looking for an end result that comes close to something like this…

Photo credits:
“death-by-presentation” from
HikingArtist.com on Flickr (Creative Commons)

  • Share/Bookmark

Continue Reading

0

In a recent discussion with ISA leaders regarding how to lessen the number of emails it sends members, the topic of Facebook fan pages came up.  The context of this discussion was focused on how ISA could be at least as effective at marketing its publications while reducing the number of emails it sends.  I was asked to explain specifically how a fan page compares with email marketing, and I came up with seven advantages:

1) “Opting In” vs. “Not Opting Out”
People must take an affirmative action to “become a fan,” which says a lot more than “I choose not to opt out.”  From a marketer’s perspective, these become your top shelf, number one, gold plated prospects.  And you treat them that way.

2)  Marketing Upside
When someone becomes a fan, all of their friends see it. This has tremendous marketing “up side.”  When someone doesn’t opt out of emails, nobody knows and there is zero additional up side.

3) Build a Community
Fans can interact with one another on the fan page, providing book reviews, answering questions, talking about their favorites, etc.  This is the very essence of Web 2.0.

4) Analytics
Facebook provides detailed statistics with regard to interactions that occur on fan pages.  This makes is very easy to quantify the value of the page over time.  Typical email marketing solutions provide counts of the number of times a message is read or a link is clicked.  However, Facebook has additional metrics that can measure interactivity and “buzz.”

5) Reach
Fan pages are open to everyone on Facebook (that’s 325 million users) – not just your email database.

6) Demographics
The fastest growing age demographic on Facebook is 35 to 45 year olds.  This is a critical demographic for many organizations.

7) Cost
Fan pages are FREE.  Enough said.

Let me know if I missed something.

  • Share/Bookmark

Continue Reading

0
Gambling when you have nothing to lose.

Gambling when you have nothing to lose.I’m going to make the case that you can’t afford not to gamble.

Let’s start with some not so simple statistics (I promise this won’t hurt).  Let’s assume we’re playing a game that has 1% chance to win $1,500 and costs $10 to play.  If your budget is $1,000 your chances to win at least once are 73% (sorry, it’s not as simple as 100/100).  Those aren’t great risk/reward options – $365 of upside versus $270 of downside.  But what happens if the cost of the game drops to $1?  Then your odds of winning at least once are 99.9%, so you’re looking at $499 of upside and $1 of downside.  Now let’s add a another wrinkle to this story.  What if I told that if you there was a better than 50% chance you’d lose your $1,000 even if you didn’t play?

Another way to look at this would be to compare the cost of 99.9% success rate.  In the three scenarios above, those costs are $10,000, $1,000, and $10 respectively.  How much of a no-brainer is it to spend $10 with a 99% probability of winning $1,500?

Cost of Failure

The first point I’m driving at here is that as the cost of failure approaches zero and the reward stays constant, at some point it ceases to be gambling and becomes something that simply can’t lose.  I’m writing about this today because I’m reading the book Groundswell and this concept has been bugging me throughout the book.  Since the authors are market researchers, I suppose it’s no surprise that they constantly harp on the need to carefully segment your target social media market (something they call “technographics“) and properly target your strategy accordingly.  They would have you determine, for example, whether your audience is composed predominately of “critics,” “creators,” “joiners,” or various other categories.  Once you’ve determined this, you can then proceed with deciding the best social media strategy and tools to employ.

The only problem with this approach is that it assumes a high cost of failure, which is not necessarily the case with the wide variety of low and no cost platforms available in our Web 2.0 economy.  Having said that, the book went a long way toward redeeming itself near the very end by encouraging companies not focus on the possibility of failure, but the cost of missed opportunities.  ”To do this, companies need to be ready to fail often, fail quickly, and most importantly, fail cheaply.”

Cost of Not Winning

If that argument is not compelling enough, then consider the final wrinkle to my original allegory.  Why not just play it safe?  If you never try, you never win, but you also never lose.  Right?  That’s true as long as your competitors and/or market don’t change the rules of the game on you.  There is a risk to not adapting or innovating that frequently inflicts more damaging, if not lethal consequences.

You need to consider the cost of failure before dismissing particular approaches or needlessly investing in research that, at the end of the day, may cost more than failing.  And just as importantly, consider the potential cost of doing nothing at all.

  • Share/Bookmark

Continue Reading