Jaffe Juice

Jaffe Juice #123 - Chatting with attendees at Satmetrix's Net Promoter Conference

Chatting with attendees at Satmetrix's Net Promoter Conference in San Francisco, CA after my keynote presentation. Also in attendance, Fred Reichheld. My thanks to Jaffe Juice listener Deb Eastman (Satmetrix's CMO) for bringing me out. Audio comments to +1 206 203-3255.

Direct download here

iTunes subscription here

Clam chowder flavored linkety-link

Sitting in the lobby of the Westin St Francis and need to get these links off my chest. They're too good to keep to myself:

• New CMO Council survey which sheds new light on social media adoption
• Life after the 30-second spot. No really.
• Twitter fun at the Satmetrix Net Promoter Conference. Now you can be here too with hashtag #NPS
• Would you like Ketchum with that? Let's hope the red you see is in fact a condiment and not blood. Sadly, I think this represents the latter. What a mess, which just seems to have been made worse by a very predictable PR-type response. No comment.
• PR is killing itself and it hurts to laugh. Only because we're laughing too much.
• The grandest of social media lists about social media lists. All your favorites are here too.
• Say it ain't so, Jo-Jo. Just kidding - 2 posts for your reading pleasure
• Tony Hsieh interviewed by Melissa Pierce.
• What do Perez Hilton and Joseph Jaffe have in common? Apparently, we're both blogging heavyweights, which I can only take to mean, "FAT"
• How to make crayons. Now you know. Next up: how to make crayonistas (rated R)
• Failure is a winning strategy. Sounds like a book title. The post title states that you aren't a social media expert until you fail (unless of course you become an expert failure)
• Just because....President Obama's official portrait (via Steve Garfield/Flickr). Did you know he's the first US President to have his photo taken with a digital camera? Wonder if it was a Panasonic? :) Also, CNN tops their election hologram with an inauguration photosynth. Hey, at least they're trying...

I joined the Twile High Club!!!

Last night I experienced GoGo wi-fi Internet service en route American Airlines #177 from JFK to SFO.

Here are some of the things I did:

• Watched the South Africa versus Australia 5th One Day cricket match live (they played in Adelaide) - Go Proteas!
• Spoke with my American Airlines client via ooVoo (video)
• Said goodnight to my family
• Tracked my flight
• Watched a bunch of Revision 3 shows, including my new favorite, The Digg Reel
• Used twitter a bunch, including asking if anyone wanted to organize a tweet-up on the flight (hence the post title, Tweet Up + Flight = Twile High Club)

All in all it was a great experience. I originally swore I wouldn't connect on a flight - my last safe haven away from all the connectivity that surrounds me on a daily basis - but now I think I'd definitely reconsider, especially on flights longer than 2 hours.

Have you tried out wi-fi in flight service yet? What did you think? Is there such a thing as too much connectivity?

If you don't blog, you can't work at crayon...

There, I said it. The post title probably sounds a little harsher than it actually is, but here's the thing...the culture of a company is its heart and soul; it's perhaps the one aspect of its DNA that is non-negotiable.

Over the past 2 years, I've played my part in trying to build the company (or at least the workplace) of the future. Part of our essence is the belief/philosophy that we walk our talk; we live in the heart of the storm; the epicenter of change....etc.

We've experimented ourselves with different types of formula - looking to balance or counterbalance marketing services experience with "social media insider" expertise, amidst a start-up atmosphere.

The fact remains...some things can be taught and others cannot; some things are natural and other things are forced; some things are either in you or they're not.

Over time, we've crafted (work in progress) our own internal checklist of what constitutes a crayonista. Some of it is attitude. Some of it is aptitude. Now - using people like Tony @ Zappos as inspiration (everyone within Zappos is on Twitter), we've decided what is mandatory and what is optional.

Here's one of the mandatories: if you aren't already blogging, don't bother applying for a position at crayon.

Sound harsh? Perhaps. Will exceptions apply? Of course, but they will be few and far between and will be considered under exceptional circumstances.

• I wonder what your reaction to this is?
• How many people within your organization are charged with "social media", but - themselves - are not walking the talk?
• Do you agree or disagree with this position?
• What gates or checklists do you have in place in your organization?
• What gates or checklists do you wish you had in place in your organization?

I'll also mention 2 additional points:

1. Shameless self-promoters need not apply (just because you have a blog doesn't give you a sense of entitlement; your content needs to be original and quality; if you're blogging to get speaking gigs, good luck with that...) In addition, blogging as an empty shell is probably lower on the prioritization list. I guess it comes down to the difference between going through the motions and actively engaging/participating in the "conversation"
2. We've thought about several other "gates" as well e.,g. people need to be actively tweeting. Like Zappos, this is something we feel strongly about...but I'm just not sure I want to put this on the same level of importance/pedastal as "blogging", which is truly a marquis representation of this new conversational model.

Thoughts?

Branding + Tweeting = Twanding?

Pretty comprehensive post on Mashable about the Top 40 brands tweeting and the people behind them.

There are apparently only 2 brands that are unaccounted for i.e. no individual person is fessing up to being the brains and good looks behind them: Burger King and Popeye's - although it appears this is by choice (as opposed to a rogue effort)

Also interesting is that only 2 of the brands have actual "people" (humans if you will) as faces of/for the brand: Dell and Ford. To be clear, I'm reffering to their names as part/whole of their Twitter ID's. Frank Eliason for example, is very much attached to Comcast in the form of Comcastcares.

With regards to the former, I'm not sure I'd completely agree with putting up Richard Binhammer as the poster child (although he has done a great job doing so) - as you'll see, there are plenty of Dell related Twitter accounts, although admittedly Richard's is the only authentic/human voice versus aggregated feeds and/or headlines.

With regards to the latter, the name/face both belong to Scott Monty, former crayonista. There appear to be no other Ford-related tweetfeeds. This begs the question, especially in this day and age of personal branding and branding transformation: which approach is better? Scott is clearly 1 out of 40, which makes him an outlier or exception to the norm. Should the rest follow suit or should Scott detach himself from the brand and replace his name with something corporate/generic like Ford, FordTweets or FordMotor(s)? I own the latter two (kidding), whereas I'm sure Jason Ford would not say no to a healthy check or new car from Ford in exchange for his Twitter ID.

Let's take this discussion up on Twitter, shall we? I'm @jaffejuice of course (or should I say @crayoncares or @josephAtCrayon?)

Is a 1-second ad 30x more or less effective than 1 x 30-second spot?

Last year, Miller High Life kicked Budweiser's overpriced ass with the most perfect brandjacked piece of creative ever. 

This year, they're trying again...this time - instead of using YouTube and the like - by buying around the Big Game, instead of in it. And oh by the way, with a series of Epilepsy inducing 1-second spots.

To me this represents the old, "once is witty, twice is shitty" adage. Put differently, most people's (including mine) reaction is a vigorous head nod, but the more you think about it, the less it makes sense.

Of course, this goes against the message itself and makes me think of two previous/similar Stupid Bowl attempts: 1) e-Trade's "we just wasted $2M on a Super Bowl spot, what are you doing/where you are you putting your money?" (Answer: hopefully not with you) and 2) Fedex's 10 tips how to create the perfect Super Bowl spot (Answer: tip #11: by esoterically talking to yourselves)

I will say that this is the ONLY spot in, near or around this year's Stupid Bowl that I'm even vaguely or remotely aware of. It appears that blogger/influencer outreach has hit an all time low in terms of activity/commitment.

What do you think? And while you're thinking, here are Brogan's thoughts

Cool iPhone Shit...

Recently went to MoMa and saw a distinguished looking elderly gentleman listening to an iPhone. I asked him what he was listening to and he showed me that it was a wi-fi powered, iPhone enabled audio tour. Each Van Gogh painting had a visual thumbnail and an accompanying Quicktime play button.

Just sublime.

For those iPhone users, you can get free wi-fi in Starbucks stores (or wherever AT&T serves i.e. including Barnes & Noble). Specifically with Starbucks, today I noticed the integration within iTunes.

Note the Starbucks logo visibility as well as the integration between what's playing in the store AND at the exact same time, the ability to purchase it on iTunes (admittedly this didn't work for me...but I'm confident it works the other 99% of the time)

As Borat would say, "very nice".

 

The greatest piece of research....ever!

...but seriously, quite possibly the dumbest piece of research.....EVER!!!

According to a Gallup & Robinson study of 12 years' worth of surveys about recall and likeability of advertising that appears in the annual pigskin classic, there is a direct relationship between the confidence people have in the economy and the attention they pay to Super Bowl commercials.

I can't even begin to go into how completely useless this information is.

Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic....attention in Super Bowl commercials is going down:
a) because people are drunk out of their minds
b) because people hate advertising
c) because people have the volume turned down and are having a party at the same time
d) because watching the commercials on YouTube and/or listening to Donny Deutsch on the Today Show was witty once....but now is shitty
e) because the creative product sucks
f) because of too much clutter
g) because they're not in the least bit in "buying mode"
g) because they're worried about paying the mortage
h) all of the above...except for g)

World's longest ad?

Absolutely brilliant. Hat tip to Durham

(I took out the embedded code b/c the @#$#@#[email protected] creative was playing automatically. Stoopid stoopid agency)

Are Facebook Apps the New Viral Video?

Friendship is strong, but the Whopper is stronger.

I'm not sure if this was an advertising tagline, created by Crispin, Porter & Bogusky for Burger King (let's call it "integrated" for now) or specifically designed for a Facebook app. Either way, it became the basis for a much discussed Facebook App where Facebook users got to "sacrifice" their friends (sort the wheat from the chaff) in exchange for a Whopper...

Said "friends" would then be notified that they had been sacrificed.

And here's where it goes pear shaped: Facebook objects to this as it violates a term/condition of their user agreement i.e. explicitly informing people that they have been removed as a friend (think creepy middle-aged guy in relation to young, smoking-hot female employee)

Facebook removes the alert notification and BK promptly "sacrifices" (nice spin) their Application...and in doing so, remains "true to themselves".

There are probably 4 angles to this story:

1. Where did it go wrong? (or did it go wrong at all)
2. How could it have gone "more right"?
3. Did it work?
4. What does this teach us?

I guess the real stories here are about collaboration and the more category-specific one: debating the role for social networking as a utility platform (amongst other roles) versus advertising vehicle.

Had CP+B/BK worked with Facebook at all (let alone more closely), perhaps the outcome would have been very different. Or not. Had Facebook "sacrificed" its subscriber terms (philosophy), arguably the loss might have been far greater than just a few friends.

Put differently, this story is somewhat of a fork in the road if you think about it: a seminal moment which paves the way for Facebook and Madison Avenue to determine:
a) whether Facebook remains a free resource for brands to loot and pillage at will
b) whether Facebook is an ad vehicle/media platform....or not

It should be acknowledged that the overall reaction to this program has been fairly positive (am I wrong?) In addition, with 82,000 participants and over 230,000 friends "removed" - not to mention plenty of buzz - it's hard to knock the fact this program struck a chord.

Of course, that chord could have been a giant flat note (to keep the metaphor going) This whole initiative just doesn't sit right in my stomach (kind of like a Whopper) From a strategic standpoint, anything overt that decreases Facebook's membership (audience) base is clearly not good for business. It also flies in the face of WHY people are using Facebook in the first place.

I'm not sure if this is too extreme a point, but one might make the argument that this is even more consumer UNCENTRIC than 30-second spots...

Perhaps had there been a way to reward the culled friends i.e. the ability (like in a reality show) to get back in the game...call it the Benie Madoff move (a revenge-based Ponzi Jedi mindtrick), it might have been a little more playful (if that's even possible).

Bottom line: This "app" broke through the clutter, but at what price? Speaking of price, for the next Hacker movie, would Facebook simulate a giant hack and fake a bunch of membership accounts being taken over? No doubt, your immediate reaction would "NO WAY, JOSE," but could this be possible? What if Facebook creates two tiers of pricing for users? Free = implicit permission for marketing shenanegans Fee = Leave us the hell alone.

What are your thoughts on what this means for future (customized) brand efforts on Facebook and similar SocNet platforms?

And then there's the subject of this post: Are Facebook Apps becoming the New Viral Video? Does resorting to stunts, extreme surprises and guerrilla or unexpected tactics become an input or output (or both) in terms of ante up?

I surely hope they'll resemble less of these kinds of efforts and more like what Kraft is doing with respect to deploying a cause marketing angle.

You should know: crayon consults with both Kraft and Facebook, but not yet Burger King or CP+B...call me! :)