The Lead

« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »

Microhoo -- Yahoo Goes Bing!

Posted by Rich Goldsmith on July 30, 2009 at 5:01 PM

A 60 percent market share is generally considered gargantuan. In some circles, it'd be tagged as nigh-monopolistic. And given that it's the percentage of the search market Google owns, Microsoft has every reason to be concerned. Its 8 percent search market share has forced the company to search for an answer to its growing online irrelevance for several years. This quixotic search was what led to the company's $47 billion bid to buy Yahoo! last year.

Now it has led Microsoft to partner with the company instead. And while it may seem fairly innocuous for Yahoo! to agree to swap out its own search engine for Microsoft's Bing search technology, believe it or not this is a deal that could make interactive marketers and social media wonks very happy, despite the depressing toll taken on Yahoo! shareholders.

Whether it's TCP/IP, HTML or SQL, standards make the internet more usable. That's one of the side effects of this deal - increased standardization. Because 90 percent of searches will now be conducted on only two systems - Google and Bing - that means one less search algorithm for SEO systems to take into consideration. Plus, rather than managing paid search placements on three systems, marketers will only have to deal with two. Paid placement expenses may remain the same, since the deal won't likely affect the volume of searches, but the management and administration time and costs will likely be reduced, if only marginally.

There is a danger, of course. Any further homogenization will impact the competition between the search titans and advertising prices will likely skyrocket. But in the current market, with the newly minted Microhoo (or Yacrosoft, if you prefer) conglomeration looking to take chunks out of Google's hide and the global economy still croaking out a Monty Python-esque "I'm not dead yet," companies looking to launch cheap and effective ad campaigns could clean up -- even with the larger concentration of companies jockeying for keywords in the shrunken marketplace.

*In the interest of full disclosure - we work for Microsoft on a project completely unrelated to the company's search business.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Best Buy, Twelpforce, and Crowdsourcing a Brand

Posted by Rich Goldsmith on July 29, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Once upon a time, branding was all about control. Companies engaged in one way communications strategies and tactics in an attempt to dictate how consumers viewed their brands. Well, no longer - now brands are being defined (and redefined) by their employees and customers and how the company interacts with them. The latest example of this phenomenon is Best Buy's "Twelpforce," which leverages the legions of "Blue Shirts" to address customer questions and service issues via Twitter.

There are two layers of genius to this program. The first, and most obvious, is that it not only helps differentiate the company from its biggest competitors by providing instant high-quality customer service, but it leverages the collective tech-savvy of its employees to provide a service to customers that no small group of hand-selected Tweeters possibly could. The second, and perhaps most important, element of the program is that rather than carefully controlling brand messaging and funneling it through a select group of spokespeople, Best Buy is trusting its employees in a very public and on the record way to help the company define the brand.

This crowdsourcing of Best Buy's brand identity has its roots with people like Robert Scoble and other corporate tech bloggers who gave an insider's view of operations at their companies back when blogging was shiny and new. In the beginning, this made corporations extremely nervous. However, now that employees and consumers are so eager to engage, converse and make the brands their own, companies realize that they can no longer afford to control their brands so tightly. In fact, they're realizing just how much value they can derive it -- making companies more likely to take a second look at how they can engage their own employees and consumers in defining their brand.

In Best Buy's case, the Twelpforce program is likely to spur increased sales as the Blue Shirts establish deeper relationships with customers and recommend products carried by Best Buy. But the benefits to this approach are likely to be felt far beyond the sales floor. Greater employee satisfaction, loyalty and engagement are a definite side effect. Equally likely is increased consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty through this increased interaction. And as these results become more evident, it'll be interesting to see what major brand will be next to put the reins in the hands of their employees and customers.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Sue First, Ask Questions Later: A Classic Lesson in Social Media and Public Relations

Posted by Jason Swartz on July 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Yesterday afternoon, Matt Kucharski (a Senior VP here at Padilla) wrote a post on good publicity and bad public relations - asking whether or not you can have both. As his post was still hot from the presses of our content management system, an interesting example of this very topic began trending upward on Twitter. The topic of discussion was a company called Horizon Real Estate, based in Chicago, IL, who learned first-hand about the good and bad of publicity and public relations - from over 50,000 consumers.

Here's what happened...

Amanda Bonnen, a former tenant of a property owned by Horizon, tweeted this to her whopping network of 20 followers:

Horizon, being the social media-savvy, public relations experts they are, filed a lawsuit against Bonnen for $50K, claiming libel. To defend themselves, a representative from the company made this statement, "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of company."

As you can imagine, Tweeple were outraged. The number of negative comments about Horizon Real Estate on Twitter has skyrocketed, to the point where I'll be surprised if they stay in business. Maybe that's a bit exaggerated, but what would you do if thousands of people were publicly communicating about your company with phrases like these:

"I would NEVER rent from Horizon now (and I live in the Chicago area). Not because of the whole moldy thing, but because of the suit!"

There goes one potential customer.

"I was looking at a Horizon Real Estate apartment w/ my fiancée. We decided not to get it. Now I find out they sue their tenants. #luckedout"

Chances are these guys won't come back.

"Dear Horizon Realty, I am not a tenant but please feel free to go *expletive* yourself at your earliest convenience."

At least this guy asked nicely.

Horizon did eventually issue an apology late yesterday, saying that their "tongue-in-cheek comments" were "taken out of context." That's kind of like when people say, "I'm sorry, BUT..." It's not really an apology. That aside, the company should have A) Thought for at least a few seconds before issuing a statement and B) Been more in tune with the social media landscape.

As companies, marketers and brands, we're at a point where getting involved in social media is a no longer a "Q4 initiative." It's a, "Let's put a plan in place RIGHT NOW so we don't end up like Horizon Real Estate" initiative. But beyond crisis control, being tuned in to the social media landscape offers many other benefits, such as customer relationship building, finding new business opportunities, media relations and more. However, you'll never discover these benefits until you at least begin to monitor what's out there. And with so many tools allowing you to do this, you really can't afford not to. From there, your communications team should be thinking about how to leverage your findings to build an approachable brand with a great reputation, that prides itself on asking questions first and never suing the people who keep you in business.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Can something be good publicity and bad public relations?

Posted by Matt Kucharski on July 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Former Padilla Speer Beardsley CEO John Beardsley forwarded an article from today's Wall Street Journal highlighting how Twentieth Century Fox created a viral campaign around the movie "I Love You Beth Cooper." The campaign encourages students giving commencement addresses to replay a key scene in exchange for some cash. Call me old-fashioned, but it's a little disheartening to see a person sully an important life event in exchange for crass promotion of a B-class movie. I've gotta believe that Ms. Mejia will look upon this 10 years from now and regret it.

Beardsley's cover note raised some good questions: "Just because it can be done, should it be done? PR is on an eternal quest for authenticity. So then, why do practitioners continually come up with programs that are inauthentic? And worse, programs that conceal their pretense? We're back in philosopher Harry Frankfurt's realm of bullshit. Or am I missing something?"

Valid questions. I don't think he's missing anything at all. To me, this stunt by Fox is a classic example of the difference between publicity and public relations. Publicity serves one purpose -- to promote. It's one-way, transactional and inherently self-serving. That doesn't make it bad - it just is what it is. Public relations is building mutually beneficial long-term relationships with people important to your success -- through acts and communications. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Comparing a publicist to a public relations professional is like comparing a day trader to a financial planner.

In short, Fox's promotion is an example of good publicity and also an example of bad public relations. For 20th Century Fox, it's pretty clear that they're willing to take the latter in exchange for the former.

Comments (0) | TrackBack |

---

Remember Those Things Called Web Sites?

Posted by Jason Swartz on July 21, 2009 at 8:33 AM

It's interesting to see traditional company Web sites dramatically changing, and in some cases, just plain disappearing. I believe this trend is the result of two things; the popularity of social media and the fact that many company Web sites are just self-serving, online pats-on-the-back, which people have lost interest in. That said, I think it's very possible you won't need a corporate Web site in the future. Before you write me off as crazy, here are a few examples that I feel justify my thinking...

While pumping gas the other day, I saw this ad from Snickers:

Note the call to action at the bottom. It doesn't say, "Visit Snickers.com for more info," nor does it provide some million dollar, branded-microsite URL. Instead, it directs people to a Snickers Fan page on Facebook - a place where their consumers are already spending a lot of their free time. The brand does still have a traditional Web site, but I wonder for how long. Just look back at what Skittles created earlier this year, which proves that a brand's Web site can exist (and co-exist) out in the wild.

Or, check out this "Web site" from BooneOakley, a North Carolina-based marketing agency, which was made entirely from YouTube videos. It's by far the most creative digital concept I've seen this year, maybe ever.

I'm not saying that every company should replace their current site with a Facebook Fan Page or a series of YouTube videos. But they should be thinking about where their audience is and how they can differentiate their brand in the digital space. That may sound a bit "Branding 101," but we often get so caught up in building expensive microsites and fancy applications that we lose site of what's relevant to the people who matter. All the while, we limit our own word-of-mouth potential by focusing too heavily on what WE think is cool, and not being the community oriented brands we say we are. Snickers, Skittles and BooneOakley found a way to create an online presence that's simple, different and relevant, while becoming approachable brands within a larger community of people who can help spread their message.

What does this mean to your Web presence now versus 5 years from now? Thinking beyond a URL and some copy about your company's awards will put you ahead of your competitors, and probably earn you some web-cred* from your tweeps** along the way.

*Like street-cred, only online
**People you converse with on Twitter

Comments (0) | TrackBack |