DIGITAL STREET JOURNAL

Yesterday, I saw the following table from eMarketer on Mashable:

It was part of Adam Ostrow’s post  “Data:  What are the benefits of social media markeing?”.  While surveys like this often provide interesting information, they also often create a sense of “great news” where it doesn’t necessarily exist.

The first thing that stands out to me is that, although many in social media talk of its great cost savings, only 51% of marketers describe this as a benefit.  Essentially half don’t see it that way.  Is that because social media strategists are failing to make their case?  Or is it simply not true that there are universal cost savings?

Ernesto Glueksmann of Infamia Global Technologies points out that this stat may actually be detrimental to the cause of social media consultants who are trying to get clients and potential clients to understand how they can save on costs.

Only 21.2% say social media is a great lead generation source.  That means that almost 80% don’t feel that way.  Why is that?  Again, because we’re not making the case?  Or is it because companies find it as an ineffective means to get new customers?

Those two attributes are extremely important to companies when it comes to allocating marketing funds during a recession.  ROI is the operative word.  What benefits us NOW.  And how can we do it at a low cost.  Underestimate that and you’ll be out of business.

A third concern I have with the chart it that the top four results all have to do with customer insight, but deal last at 17.5% is customer service.  Does this mean that companies are failing to take that feedback and turn it into action?  Are companies not set up for fulfillment?  Or do they not care?

This whole chart shows me that there’s a lot of untapped potential in social media, but it also shows me that that potential is elusive.  We can’t rely on our own presumptions and pontifications if our clients and potential clients can relate to what we’re saying.

Alan Edgett, who also added an insightful comment, talks of the difference between “doers” and “experts”.  While I’m not necessarily going to denounce “experts” (I don’t consider myself to be one), I think it’s incumbent upon those of us in online marketing to read between the lines of studies and stats to better serve our clients and become actual “doers”.

may as well take a stab at it…

1) The relationship between traditional agencies and clients will strengthen, then start to fall apart

The recession means that marketing executives will be wanting to stay with the things that they’re familiar with…meaning traditional advertising.  This is bad news for many of us who look to make our coin in the online arena.  But in many sectors, the traditionals will not be able to adequately address the then current needs of clients.  Cost inefficiencies and the lack of imagination will combine to force marketing executives to look more and more at social media.  Most traditional agencies won’t be ready.  The changes will begin to be noticeable in late 2009.

2) The conversation is NOT over when it comes to the rules and regulations of social media.  They’ll continue.  As they should.

Chris Brogan’s sponsored post on Dadomatic taught me this:  the guiding principle here will not be what seems to be right, but what works financially.  This will start to change our perception of what “is right”.

Take Izea.  It’s my guess that many of the bloggers that Izea will use will be the same type of person that the Democratic candidates talked about when they were running for office.  Or for that matter, Joe the Plumber.  Soon, many of us could look like snobs.  I mean, who am I to question a mom of three who lives in blue collar suburb of a fading Midwestern city whose husband was recently laid off and who has a son in Iraq, if she wants to write sponsored posts a few times a month to make ends meet?

It may alter the authenticity a bit, at least in theory, but it’s inevitable and we’ll need to accept that.

3) This year we’ll start to see a better balance between transparency and legal.

As we just saw in the Ford/TheRangerStation incident, the big name company isn’t always wrong and isn’t always blind to social media.  Legal isn’t always tone deaf toward the needs of PR.  And we also saw that people will give a company a chance if they feel as if they’re being dealt with squarley.

It won’t always be done that smoothly, but it will be more common in the future.

4) Brand marketing will be more greatly tied into customer experience

We’ll see less fluff and more value.  We’ll see companies working harder for your dollars.  A lot of that will be tied into customer service.  Social media will lead the way on this.

5) Ad strategies will be more directly tied into direct sales

Again, the fluff gets reduced and branding for the sake of branding gives way to direct sales and giveaways.  Companies may not have time to lay down a long term branding campaign.  Those that stress immediate value will win, as long as it’s true.

Many others will try to stress value…but it will be as empty as Motrin’s claim that they “hear” mothers who view babywearing as a fashion statement.

6) Political groups will struggle to find the right balance of top-down

The Obama campaign ensured that politicking has changed for ever.  But to what degree?  Advocacy organizations, consultants, and political insiders will struggle to find the answer.  There will be more slop ups than successes.  That’s because traditional types will try to muscle their way in, and they’ll make stupid, boneheaded mistakes.

Most of the groups will try to install pseudo from the bottom up campaigns.  These will usually fail.  But advocacy organizations nevertheless will NEED to control much of the message as social media strategies find that the variant motives to support a series of issues can create more chaos than that of a singular political candidate.

7) Specialized social media agencies begin to take off

We’ll begin to see social media practices that are more focused on types of individuals.  Example:  women make most of the purchases for the home.  Outreach practices will reflect that reality.  This goes to my thoughts that we need to be engaging people on their terms.  Moms can relate to moms better.

8 - It will no longer be quaint to play the role of the technoboob

CEOs and other business leaders can no longer position themselves as aged idiots.  Not funny, not cool, not good for business.  John McCain needed help answering his email…John McCain is still a senator from Arizona.

The emergence of India and China will make this a necessity.  No more patience for the technoboob.  And I can be a bit of a technoboob myself.

9 ) There will be more dumb marketing mistakes by major companies

Plenty of fodder is on the way.  Just wait and see.  Social media consultants don’t have the stature - yet - of preventing overly produced, overly promotional efforts.

10) Social media on the local level begins to emerge

People will begin to connect locally at a much higher rate than before.  Smaller, local companies will need to reach them in some way.  Whether it is sponsoring local meetups or conducting localized blogger relations campaigns, it will be a trend.

I could go on and on an on…

In one business day, Scott Monty showed us why companies still own their brand, why PR still matters, and why he’s a top notch social media strategist.

TheRangerStation.com, a 10 year old fan site for Ford Ranger owners and enthusiasts, had been selling unliscenced Ford merchandise with the Ford logo on it.  This caught the attention of the Ford legal team who promptly sent TheRangerStation a cease and desist letter.  When TheRangerStation’s owner went public about the letter, chaos began to ensue as the owner conveniently omitted the fact that he had been selling counterfeited material.  This began a backlash from many online where they bought into the idea that the little guy was being knocked around by the huge company.

Scott asked his many followers on Twitter to hold off judgment.  He had established credibility with many over his active years in social media, and many did hold off.  When Scott then divulged that the site owner had been selling counterfeited items, the attacks began to recede.  He and the legal team used normal conversational explanations to tell all of us what the reality was.

For a better and deeper explanations, Shel Israel has a great post here and John Bell has one here.  Or you may want to take a look at this presentation by Ron Ploof.

Besides the fact that this shows me that Scott Monty is a top notch professional, it shows me several other things.

Companies are still in control of their brand.  As they should be.

I’ve always thought the declaration that companies are not in control of their brand anymore was relative nonsense.  While it’s true that absolute control is nevermore, the nexus remains within the companies that produce the brand.  And while there will be missteps and outright boneheaded mistakes, social media won’t change that.

What social media does is allow consumers to have greater affect on the brand and it allows companies to redefine the brand to this new reality.

Will there be exceptions?  Of course.  But relatively small faux pas will pass, especially within our 24 hour news cycle.

Public relations is still a very much needed profession.

I reread The Cluetrain Manifesto over the past couple of days and began to grimace over Rick Levine’s over hyped trashing of PR.  He was proved wrong on a larger level - it takes professionals who know what they’re doing to forestall a fiasco like this.  Therefore PR is needed.  Levine was correct though in how it should be carried out.  First you build trust and then you tell your side if need be.  What Levine didn’t get is that it’s PR’s role to do just that.  A ton of PR people in PR aren’t the snake oil salesmen like the way he describes.

Online relationships matter.  Trust and integrity is essential and carry influence.

The reason Scott Monty was able to hold off the lynch crowds the way he did was because he had built up the credibiity that’s needed to work with followers on Twitter to friends on Facebook and to colleagues overall.  It most certainly was not mostly about Ford.  How we carry ourselves online is what we become in the perception of others.  Scott’s acting as a conduit between legal and different online communities should be a great case study for years to come.  For both those of us in online marketing AND legal departments.

The Bivings Group has come out with their annual study of the usage of the Internet by the largest 100 newspapers in the United States.  There’s a decent amount of progress on many fronts, but whether or not this can keep the newspaper industry viable remains to be seen.

First of all, they probably need to change their name - newspapers.  As more and more people go online, they’ll be thinking digital, not paper.

Here’s a cut and from the findings:

• Newspapers are experimenting with user generated content.  The study found that 58 percent of newspapers allowed for user generated photos, while 18 percent accepted video and 15 percent articles.  Overall, 58 percent of newspapers offered some form of user generated content in 2008 compared to 24 percent in 2007.
• Research shows that the number of newspaper websites allowing users to comment on articles has more than doubled in the last year.  Seventy five percent of newspapers now accept article comments in some form, compared to 33 percent in 2007.
• Ten percent of newspapers had social networking tools, such as user profiles and the ability to “friend” other users, built into their sites in 2008. This compares to five percent of sites that included this feature in 2007. It is surprising that this number isn’t higher.
• Seventy six percent of newspapers offered a Most Popular view of content in some form (Most Emailed, Most Blogged, Most Commented, etc.).  This compares to 51 percent in 2007 and 33 percent in 2006.
• Integration with external social bookmarking sites like Digg and del.icio.us has increased dramatically the last few years.  Ninety-two percent of newspapers now include this option compared to only seven percent in 2006.
• Every newspaper the study examined featured some sort of online advertising. Indeed, 100% of newspapers provided some form of contextual advertising, such as Google Adwords. Forty-three percent of newspaper websites used interstitial advertising.
• Of the new features examined in this year’s study, we found that 57 percent of newspapers offer PDF editions, 20 percent offer chatting options, 96 percent provide local weather information, 40 percent utilize SMS alerts and 70 percent offer community event calendars.
• The number of websites requiring registration to view most content (free or paid) has decreased from 2007.  Now only 11 percent of websites require registration to view full articles, compared to 29 percent in 2007 and 23 in 2006.
• All of the 100 newspapers in the study provide some type of RSS feed. In 2007 all but three newspapers offered RSS feeds.

Frankly, as I look at these, I’m not sure what more newspapers can do.  For sure, newspapers can adopt most of the technologies listed above.  But the fact today is that there are many more news sources that can be easily transferred online.  Newspapers - both print and digital - may be a dominant force for local news, but I see a future with smaller publicatons such as we have here in Washington DC, the Washington Examiner and the Post Express.  Compact versions that can be easily carried.  Major print pubs such as the Washington Post will still thrive in many places.

A major problem I think is that a lot of people just don’t care about news.  Ask people what form of Islam most Afghanis are vs. most Iranians, or who Bernard Madoff is and you’d get blank stares.  Heck, people don’t even know who their U.S. Senators are.  And they don’t care.

Yes, newspapers need to do a lot more.  But what?  I don’t know.  The biggest problem is a public that doesn’t give a damn.

Thi post is in response to Technosailor’s recent attack post, Jeremiah Owyand sticks foot in mouth (again) Over Izea Sponsored Posts, on Jeremiah’s role in the Chris Brogan/Kmart controversy. It’s meant in fun.

I came very late to Saturday’s controversy regarding Chris Brogan’s sponsored post on Dadomatic.  Most of the day I had been out and I got back in around midnight so it caught me by surprise.  In my initial limited knowledge, I thought it was a charity thing put on by KMart.  Turned out it wasn’t but Chris nevertheless bought toys for underpriviliged children.  However controversial, that’s a cool thing to do.

But first, a few disclosures:

• I am, thanks to Chris, a fellow daddy blogger on Dadomatic.  And by the end of the week I’ll be posting my own review of a cookbook.
• I’ve actually done some work for Izea on a freelance subcontractual basis.  At first I was leery of the concept of Pay Per Post, but I then came to realize that many of the people involved aren’t sleazy snake-oil types.  Many of them are moms looking to earn a few more dollars for their families.
• I’m looking to create a service for local businesses - primarily restaurants - that will include blogger relations. 
• Chris Brogan and Jeremiah Owyang are two of the people that I respect the most on Twitter.  For both their insight and their generosity.

Apprently, Chris was roundly criticized by many on Twitter following this tweet by Jeremiah: 

Here’s @chrisbrogan ’s paid post for Kmart http://snipurl.com/7ynb1 Transparent, Yes. Authentic? Debatable. Sustainable? No.

The part that probably got people going was the “Authentic?  Debatable.” part.  Pro and anti Brogan forces soon joined into a fray.  So here’s my take:

Announcing a sponsored post, done in limited quanities is fine by me.  It comes with risks, but each individual has to decide for himself or herself if they would do it.  Chris did it and bought some winter clothes for his kids as we go into winter.  And he bought some toys for tots.  It isn’t the end of the world and I have no problem with it. His rep is intact in my book.

I also think Jeremiah has every right to take look at the question the concept of sponsored posts.  It’s a worthy discussion, espcially since Ted Murphy just tweeted

“In the past month izea has had opps 4 ford, kmart and sears, now another fortune 100 brand-my favorite soft drink. 2009 is yr of spon posts”

The real missed opportunity here is from Kmart.  They could have donated a certain amount of money to an organization per blog comment and per retweet.  That would have taken some of the ill will off over the whole thing while giving people the opportunity to feel as if they are contributing something.  It could have been this year’s Frozen Pea campaign.

But this post isn’t about all that.  It’s about a post in response to all of this that I read last night.  Aaron Brazell, known as Technosailor and one of the more colorul commentators in social media, let loose on Jeremiah with “Jeremiah Owyang Inserts Foot in Mouth (Again) over Izea Sponsored Posts”.  Read it please.  I did, twice.  First time, left a comment.  Second time  I was taken somewhat aback by its harshness.

Jeremiah picked up on this development and decided it needed to be a big issue, asking questions (in his typical braindead question asking style) about the campaign, and insinuating that Chris is not authentic in his post. This is not his role as a research analyst.

With all the background in place, let me offer my own opinion - less about Izea, and more about Jeremiah. Jeremiah is, as a representative of Forrester Research and in his function as a research analyst, expected to be a thought follower, not a thought leader. That is, his role is not to editorialize, or offer public opinion in such a way that exerts his influence outside of his Forrester client base.

From where I sit, outside of Jeremiah’s client base, I can say that I don’t follow him on Twitter nor do I read his blog because he’s a thought follower.  He’s a thought leader in my book.  As is Chris Brogan.  As is, for that matter, Technosailor himself.

In this case, Jeremiah had no place asserting himself in a conversation that he had no information on. If you’re not part of the problem, and you’re not part of the solution, then you stay out.

It’s like Technosailor is saying that Jeremiah is not supposed to express his opinions publicly.  Since when do people in social media not comment on stuff?  Twitter is still abuzz this topic.  Social media is about conversation.  I’m sure a helluva lotta people made dumb comments on this, attacking either side.  But that’s social media, for good or for bad.  Freedom of speech, baby. 

I agree the whole issue is stupid. The fact that Brogan, (and I, this upcoming week) are doing these posts and have our own personal reputations and brands on the line should be enough to recognize that the fact that there is a sponsored post will not hurt our reputations.

This whole issue IS a bit stupid. But sorry, right or wrong, deserved or not, writing a sponsored post can hurt your reputation.  And reputations, while rooted in the way one carries oneself, is inevitably seen through the eyes of others.  No one is above that. 

For the record, I don’t for a minute feel that Technosailor’s upcoming sponsored post will be a sign that he’s compromising his values.  His integrity, which is high, will remain intact with me.

The problem, Jeremiah, is that you are taking the stigma of a company from two years, channeling the mindsets of the Mike Arringtons and Jason Calacanis’ of the world from two years ago and trying to make the same arguments today is where I think the stink is coming from outside of your direct influence. By the way, Calacanis gives a thumbs up on the effort…

…The problem is when you start fighting two year old fights. It makes you look irrelevant and petty. It makes you look tone deaf. When you go after Brogan (which I respect your assertation that it did not happen the way you wanted), it makes you look… well, clueless.

The problem is actually that this argument is NOT over.  The discussion, as we saw this past Saturday remains.  There are the gods and gurus of social media for sure.  And they have earned their influence and respect.  But social media as whole is too democratic and too much of an unwieldy beast to tame that easily.

Not everyone is hip to sponsored posts.  Ask Shel Israel.  Ask CK.  Ask a bunch of others and you’ll get hmms and haws and outright thumbs down.

Which brings me to what I consider to be the most important points of all.  Social media is still in adolesence.  We practitioners have less influence than we think.  Take two studies from Forrester that I learned about from none other than, well, Jeremiah Owyang.  Very, very, VERY telling.

One is that, in a Forrester study, 15 of 16 companies attempting to use social media as a marketing communications vehicle were failing in the fundamentals of social media as they were often treating it as a means to broadcast messages with their own needs coming first.   That means, to me companies aren’t listening to social media strategists. 

The second was that corporate blogs finished dead last in a survey of people who were asked what sources they felt were reliable about a company.  Dead last at 13%.  Once again, we’re not being listened to.

People, that’s the major problem here.  Not the fact that Chris Brogan went on a sponsored shopping spree and maybe one of us will too.  Hell, I retweeted the thing and I could use the money.

But that’s why Jeremiah’s follow up post offers so much.  Let’s examine what we’re doing.  Especially if Ted Murphy is right in that 2009 will be the year of sponsored posts.  We owe ourselves that.

That’s why Mitch Joel’s post nails it.  Companies are not ready, willing and able for Marketing 2.0.  These are the issues we should be facing and addressing.  And those that think they are ready are doing it wrong.

Right now we’re not seeing the forest for the trees.  And the longer we do that, the longer we won’t be listened to.

Digital-bases social media is now going through puberty.  It’s young, it isn’t mature, it’s lost its baby fat, it’s changing.  From what I see, at this point, the most appropriate answer to many of our questions is:  It Depends.

I got this from reading Beth Harte’s post “Is Social Media Scalable?” In it, she seems to limit the discussion to two-way conversations and then comes to the conclusion that they aren’t scalable.  But then she contradicts her own point.  At least theortetically:

Two-way conversations are not scalable. Once they reach the tipping point, two-way conversations revert back to one-way conversations (or the community conversing amongst themselves). At this point, Web 2.0 tools join the arsenal of traditional marketing tools (such as direct marketing, e-mail marketing, PR, advertising, etc.) to continue mass, one-way communication efforts.

Where exactly is that tipping point?  Once a third person joins in?  If not, then it would seem to me that two-way conversations ARE scalable.  But she’s right in that there is a tipping point that occurs when it becomes impossible for an organinzation to facilitate a real discussion.  It becomes a broadcast.   Or a speech to an auditorium, where the speaker can take questions from the audience, but is unable to develop an ongoing dialogue wit the attendees.

This is why the answers to these questions is almost always It Depends.  It will depend on the the core facilitator, the topic, the original participant, the following participants.

Take the recent presidential campaign.  The strategy of creating a huge social network of supporters that often collaborated together was scalable social media.  The candidate was a cause and the supporters we passionate empowered followers.

Earlier today I was reading Chris Brogan’s insightful post on the nature of social media conversations, Cafe-Shaped Conversations.  The post itself is great, and a worthy read.  But what got me was one of the comments left, in this case by Michael Baily of Mobasoft:

I recently tried having a Twitter conversation with the chief marketing officer of Best Buy @BestBuyCMO (Barry Judge).

Here’s what I said,

“Your Blue Shirts don’t know anything. I always tell them “NO!” when they ask if they can help me. They are clueless about tech.

The Blue Shirts are really good at coming up with answers, but they are the wrong answers.

Check your store return records for “Wrong part” or “Not compatible” - your Blue Shirts cause that to be way too high.

Of course, as a “marketing guy” you probably have no real interest in fixing the system, just keeping the sales up. Sure, ok.”

His Response was:

“Guess I don’t understand why you feel like I warrant being personally slammed. First time I’ve been insulted here.Congratulations”

So I said: 

“Hey Barry, it comes with your position. Perhaps nobody ever tells you what they really think. No congratulations required.

Obvious to everyone else your answer should have been “‘Yes, BB has many problems, I’ll see what I can do’.

And lastly, as you blogged in Oct, “it starts with being open and transparent.” I was, and you got insulted. Go Figure.”

So, before he Blocked me he said

“Your 4 tweet criticism of our company was fine. And we will be better for it. The personal attack is unjustified. My POV. I’m Done”

There you have it - an attempt to be transparent and when faced with anything other that “ra-ra fanboys” he tucks tail and plays the “personal attack” card.

So, whatever, the marketing people should just stay out and play their little spin games. The people in social media for real, are for the most part too smart for them anyhow.

Apparently Mr. Bailey isn’t much for marketing types.  That’s clear.

Where do I start?  How about from the top.  Subtle insults aren’t a good way to start a conversation in social media.  Saying, “Your people suck.  And I bet you don’t care” isn’t the touchy feely, warm and fuzzy approach that we in social media seem to be always espousing.  Not a good way to “get the ball rolling” so to speak.  A little too direct IMHO.

It seems while Michael Bailey was getting legitimate frustrations out from his experiences dealing with the “blue shirts” at Best Buy, he then used his personal disdain for marketers to make those subtle insults…no real interest in fixing the system…Perhaps nobody ever tells you what they really think…Obvious to everyone else your answer should have been…here you have it - an attempt to be transparent and when faced with anything other that “ra-ra fanboys” he tucks tail and plays the “personal attack” card.

To me, there’s no reason to act this way.  On Twitter, we’re all equals.  It’s one thing to make disparaging remarks about a company, but when hostility become subtly personal, it goes against the grain for engaging social media conversation.

For the record, I think Michael, with Mobasoft, will have one of the best apps for Twitter.  It will rock.

Now regarding Barry, the CMO of Best Buy.  I wouldn’t have blocked Michael.  I probably would have made the first comment to defend myself, and then I likely would have taken a step back.  Perhaps what he should have done (and maybe this is already in place) was to get to establish a team of people who can work with online complaints.  People who live up to the blue shirt promise.  Perhaps they cold set that up on a regional basis, so the online blue shirts can directly contact local stores to let them know of the problem and that someone named i.e. Michael Bailey will be coming in and he needs this problem solved.  And Best Buy should have a system in place to fulfill that.  It may take months, but it would likely be worth it in recessionary times as people will be more careful where the spend their dollar.

And then Michael Bailey could perhaps work on his approach to marketers on Twitter.  Even if they are CMOs.

Jeremiah Owyang has a stellar post giving us a health check we need to look our for regarding corporate blogs.  Corporate types would be well advised to read it and to subscribe to his blog.

In fact, it would be great to see more corporate types writing comments in blogs such as his.

In yet another example of why corporations don’t understand what social media really is, we now see that in a Forrester survey, corporate blogs are finishing dead last amongst eighteen categories as a source of information.  The reason?  The blogs are being perceived as being too promotional, as pushing positive stories on the company, its products and services.  Gee.  What a surprise.

Only 16% of respondents felt that corporate blogs bred a decent level of trust.  Email form people one knows was the highest with 77%.

This tells me four things.

1)  Corporations don’t get social media.  OK, that’s obvious.  But with all the amount of speeches, presentations, and white papers on this stuff, you’d figure that some of the common sense guidelines would get through.  Obviously not.   

Josh Bernhoff of Forrester observed, “Everybody thinks their blog is an exception.”  Exactly.  Regardless of whomever is running the blog operation, you’ve got a corporate culture that doesn’t see beyond itself to see what the blogging culture - and as a whole, that of social media - is about.  Blogging is seen as a marketing apparatus that is corporate/product/service centric and not customer centric.  That’s the wrong way to go.  Corporate blogs have to be customer centric first.  Only after establishing a customer centric style blog could a company then add a promotional flavor to it…in limited quanities done in informal language.  No exceptions.

2) Social media strategists are yet to be respected.  Ouch.  Whether it is department heads of communication or CXOs setting the environment for the company blog, one thing is for sure:  the message that many of us have been espousing for a few years now is not getting listened to.  It’s my guess is that it is being ignored, hence Bernoff’s comment that every company thinks it’s the exception.

Social media is relatively new and I’d bet that many of the real consultants on this - the ones that know what they’re talking about are either relatively young and are automatically ignored by more senior staffers and officials or are too far removed from inside decsion makers and are filited through traditional types who are basically yesmen (and yeswomen) to the people upstairs.

Most of what social media types now say is largely theoretical.  Accurate theories in my opinion, but theories nevertheless.  We talk amongst ourselves and we listen to one another.  But the key officers in the companies that are our clients DON’T listen.  At least at the rate they should.

I personally don’t really follow any corporate blogs.  Maybe I should.  Maybe we all should and then pass to one another those that justify the findings in the survey.  Maybe we should give the corporate bloggers a chance to change their ways and be less promotional.  If we don’t then maybe we should go on the attack.

That’s because we’re defending our industry.  Which leads me to point #3.

3) This could be fatal to most corporate blogging efforts.  Don’t think so?  I do.  For sure, we’ll see many successful blogs.  But I’m betting that for those that don’t adopt the correct customer centric approach, we’ll see abandonment of efforts and then conclusive decsions that blogging doesn’t work or that blogging isn’t for them.  Try to tell a client or prospective client differently and nudge them into what is the right direction?  Fuggedaboutit.  It won’t work.  They won’t listen.  They’ve been burned by their own stupidity and arrogance and won’t want to hear anymore of it - especially by someone that they perceive to be less experienced in corporate communications.

4) We must be brave and challenge and say things that prospective clients don’t want to hear.  It doesn’t have to be arrogance on our part, but we’re going to have to tell the person on the other side of the table that they’re wrong, that they’re not the exception, and that the way they want to do it will fail.  That’s be cause they are wrong, they aren’t the exception, and the way they will do it will fail.

We’ll need to back it up and then not back down.  Because 16% is far too low of a trust percentage of what we espouse.  Those theories we espouse are worth more than that.

Time to make an announcement.

I’m looking to establish a new business that, as far as I know, isn’t in existence anywhere else. It will etail social media, local businesses, and that renowned marketing strategy, word of mouth. Or maybe, more appropriately, word of mouse. It will be designed to be relatively low cost, which should be a plus for companies struggling in this recession. But it’s a new concept that many potential clients may not understand. And it’s my guess that many of the businesses I’ll be targeting loathe to put money in marketing.

So here it is. I want to establish an online marketing business, with a focus on social media, for local establishments such as restaurants, night clubs, theaters, health clubs, and in some cases, retail stores. I’m calling it CheckItOut.  The major thrust will be blogger relations. These types of businesses – especially restaurants and theatres – are the types of businesses that are subject to reviews. In fact, many of these businesses may not know it, but they’re often being reviewed online by local bloggers who are just so happened to frequent their establishment. I want to formalize this process in a coordinated way.

Restaurants are probably the best choice to start out with. Most of the types of restaurants that I’d be reviewing will use some sort of gift card system. It’s essential that the offer from the restaurant to the blogger be substantial enough to take the initiative to try out the place.

Now regarding the bloggers. I don’t want go on fishing expeditions to get bloggers here and there every time I get a new client. Instead, I’m looking to develop relationships with the bloggers so they are “virtually” part of my business.

The DC area is home to literally hundreds, if not thousands of people that have blogs. Decent blogs. Attractive blogs. Well read blogs. Blogs by young singles that talk about their social life. Mommy and daddy bloggers that talk about family life. Foodie bloggers. Neighborhood bloggers. And, yeah, political bloggers. Point is, these are exactly the types of people who are also likely to have an interest in going out and checking out new things. Restaurants, clubs, shows, that new children’s clothing store, the health club. There are tons of those types of establishments in the DC area. Soon, many of these businesses will be hurting for business, if they’re not already.

Practically all of these businesses don’t know how to market themselves online. If they have a website, it will more than likely be simple brochureware. When they try to market themselves (almost always offline), they’ll use low level ineffective tactics that do nothing to make them stand out. In other words, they’re throwing spaghetti against a wall and hope it sticks. The most important thing to them with marketing is to keep costs down. Do it on the cheap. More than likely, they’re wasting money. That’s where I come in.

My hope is to be able to develop a stable of bloggers here in the greater DC area. I’d develop a “virtual” relationship with them, where I’d know what they’re about…their general tastes in food, if they’re married or single, if they have children, where they live and where they work. I’m not looking to know intimate details of their lives, but I will need to know some info so I can match them with an appropriate type of client.

Here’s how it would work. Let’s say there’s a new restaurant featuring Middle Eastern food in Arlington, which is directly west of DC. The prices are $10-$18 for entrees. It’s a good place for a date or to take the kids.

As I develop a client base, I would (hopefully) be able to point out to the restaurant’s owner/manager that I have established relationships with, say, 30 bloggers who live or work within a 15 mile radius. Eight of those bloggers could be in his zip code. And eight of the thirty have specifically told me that Middle Eastern food is one of their favorite cuisines. I’d then whip out samples of previous reviews of other restaurants, reviews that are attractive looking blogs.

Now amongst all those bloggers is a 30-something single professional woman who lives in Reston (about 15 miles west of Arlington) and works in Tysons Corner (about nine miles west of the restaurant). She likes all type of food, but especially Middle Eastern and Thai. She has no children. She also loves the theater. And she’s a perfect and candidate to get a gift card from the restaurant. Reston may be a bit of a haul, but since she works in Tysons, she won’t necessarily have to travel all that far if she goes out after work. 

She may blog about being single and, say, working as a women in a practically all-male tech company. She’s developed a readership in the hundreds. Some of them live in and around Arlington.

And she’s just one blogger out of the thirty. I would work with the owner/manager to come up with the right offer. It has to be based on money - not the typical buy two dinners and get the second one at half price. Likely the price of an average entree and one drink/appetizer/dessert.  The incentive has to be there because the reward is a hopefully good review.

From her point of view, she knows that when I come calling, it’s for something that she would likely be interested in. She sort of feels as if I’m working for her, or that she’s part of a select few that gets to try out things for free (or a reduced price) and then report back to her readers with a review. In her case, it could be a restaurant near Reston, or one further away but specializes in the cuisine she likes.  Like a Middle Eastern restaurant in Arlington.  

And she would be one of dozens of bloggers that I can tap into.

Roadblocks

As I mentioned, many of these types of restaurants resist advertising. A lot of it is ego driven. Many feel that their food speaks for itself and that they shouldn’t have to spend money to promote themselves. What they fail to realize is that most restaurants they compete against produce decent enough food and have decent enough service just like they do. Often, they – and their competition – don’t stand out. They win or lose by a proverbial coin flip.

As I also mentioned, when they do chose to market themselves it is with low level tactics. I see this all the time.  Insufficient offerings that are mostly designed to benefit the restaurant and not the customer. They hardly ever work.  Doesn’t surprise me.

When restaurants do spend a decent amount of money, it’s often an ad in a prestigious publication. The regional magazine, for instance. Three quarters of the readers may live too far to come to their establishment. The ad has no offer to get people to try out the place. But they can say that they advertised in (as far as DC goes) The Washingtonian. And they spent big bucks to do so. When they realize that it didn’t result in bringing in more business, they decide that advertising doesn’t work.

Then, after they conclude that, I come in the door talking about these things called blogs. What the hell are blogs? Then I explain what blogs are. You want me to advertise on them? No, I want to have us send them gift cards so they can try out your food and write reviews on their blogs. Us? And what role will you play? You’ll pay me to coordinate it. So, you’re telling me that you want me to pay you to give away free food to these people that I don’t even know?

But, hey, if not me, then who? If not now, then when?

I’ll be using a blog to start things off.  Here’s the About Check It Out DC page.  I’ll be contacting bloggers in this area, giving them something to get them thinking, and then sending them to the About page.

I’d really appreciate feedback on this.  Both the concept and the About page.  So if anyone reads this, please let me know what you think… 

Thanks!!