Jaffe Juice

Jaffe Juice #126 - Chatting with Bob Garfield about the end of the media world

Bob and Joe together. It's like 2 naughty schoolboys about to set fire to the schoolyard. Actually we're chatting about his Apocalypse Now piece in Ad Age. Good times. Audio comments to +1 206 203-3255. Follow me on twitter: @jaffejuice.

Direct download here

iTunes subscription here

Bob Garfield links:

• On the Media
• Ad Age
• Chaos Scenario

JaffeJuiceTV - Drink It

Digging the HD Scene

SXSW came and went. I wasn't there, but crayonistas Jane Quigley and Greg Verdino represented us in full force.

They also represented two of our clients: ooVoo and Panasonic - with the latter being involved in a unique live taping of cultishly popular Diggnation, led by their two hosts Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht.

The partnership in question (episode #194) was to highlight Panasonic's Living in High Definition initiative in a promotion called, "Diggnation lives in HD"

From Greg:

If you like taking pictures or shooting video -- or just want to take a look at our latest social marketing tactic to promote the Living in HD community site -- visit the promo page to find out how you can qualify for the competition.  Don't forget to join LiHD, friend the Diggnation crew.You might win a sweet Panasonic digital still camera or HD camcorder.

Greg's photos from the event are here.

Crack in the Box

Jack in the Box (which I'm told is best described as a perfect cross between White Castle on Crack mixed with Stephen King's IT Character) recently dipped its cone into the social media snark-infested (oh I am trademarking that - full attribution required from hereon end) waters with it's "conversation starter" Super Bowl commercial commercial.

Bringing back shades of Frontier Airline's Flip the Dolphin, JITB created a website - Hang in there Jack - which included 81,000 get well messages from "concerned" patrons, including videos and songs. There was also (of course) a blog, which included comments like these:

• You all are morons. I like checking out most dot com websites .but yours is the epitomy of the worst. Your humanity is absurd
  
• Makes no difference to me, because Jack never came up here to feed us New Yorkers. We should grill Jack like a Pig and eat him.
• Your food makes me poop

That's where it gets interesting and where JITB might (I stress might) have succeeded where Skittles failed. With the exception of vulgarity and profanity, of which poop is apparently neither, the company let the conversation extend and evolve (or devolve) as it might...

No question that irreverence is a major part of this brand's make-up and personality. Couple that with a more open-minded, pragmatic and honest approach to dealing with consumer generated content and the "conversation", and you have a pretty authentic mixture of good and bad...peacefully co-exiting side by side.

According to the LA Times, the six-week "Hang in There Jack" campaign (Secret Weapon Marketing, Santa Monica) was a remarkable document: a 360-degree social media event that mocked even as it exploited the power of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Flickr. Along the way it leveraged irony to the breaking point with "viral" cellphone and faux-paparazzi videos, ring tones and texting. Among the crowd-sourced content were 27 get-well videos from fans, some quite brilliant. A man in Hawaii bought Jack's size-14 Bruno Magli shoe on EBay for $910. Now that's buy-in.

Clearly there was leadership, pre-sell and management of expectations by and from both client and agency in this case. JITB execs contended that the social media component of this program generated impressions (4.8 million video impressions for example) which would have cost "three times as much" using traditional media.

The other obvious ingredient in this taco was strategy (repositioning; relaunching) as hard as it may seem when you read a blog post written by a fictional demented clown titled "My post coma plans"

Jack's back, baby. Jack's back.

Why charging a digital or PR agency with social media is a flawed strategy

My latest Adweek column is up and it's already getting its fair share of comments - with some particularly negative ones leveled at me.

The piece is about where I think "social" media really fits and why - based on this assessment - I think it's a flawed strategy to charge a digital or PR agency with the AOR responsibilities associated with this imperative.

PS If you're going to be a hater, please indicate if you work for a digital or PR agency :)

Full text here:

Who Owns Social Media?

A clue: don't look to digital agencies or PR shops

March 15, 2009

-By Joseph Jaffe

There are three worlds. Or perhaps I should say three environments. And whether you know it or not, you're living in all three right now.

Let's start off with the physical world, also known as the real world (and I'm not talking about an MTV program). The physical world, from a media standpoint, is the one governed by television, radio and print. It's also the world in which most word-of-mouth conversations happen. Face to face.

Then there's the digital world. Web 1.0. The world of Web sites. Of big, Flash-based, SEO-unfriendly "skip intro" edifices built to glorify brands. This is the world of e-mails, banners and buttons. It's a world of advergames and gargantuan portals. And it's become synonymous with "traditional interactive" -- a sterile wasteland devoid of life, creativity and innovation.

Finally, there's the virtual world. Yes, it includes the obvious virtual reality, the maligned Second Life, MMORPG experiences like World of Warcraft and more kid-friendly environments like Club Penguin or Webkinz. But, I would argue, it also includes blogs, podcasts, presence applications like Twitter and social networks. My definition of a virtual world is any environment that utilizes avatar and/or profile-based participation, with the option of anonymity. In short, it's a place or space where people can interact with other people in ways they could never do in the "real" or digital worlds.

So where does social media fall? The obvious answer is right in the middle of these three worlds, which is exactly why neither a digital agency nor the PR industry is equipped to deliver against the three-pronged imperative of community, dialogue and partnership.

Digital agencies today are stuck somewhere between scalability hell (tasked with automating and compartmentalizing the lowly impression) and storytelling schlock (replicating obtuse and detached hyperbole in an advertising-unfriendly environment). It's a world governed by performance-based pricing and ad networks on the one side and pre-roll advertising and clunky Web builds on the other.

Exactly where and when did the digital space earn the stripes and credentials to tackle the high roads of authenticity, transparency or peer-to-peer collaboration (just to name a few of conversational marketing's core tenets)?

The PR business is really no better and no worse than the digital one when it comes to social credentials. With its claim of being champions of "earned media," it tacked the word "relations" onto blogger, lumped it together with "media relations" and "journalist relations," and somehow went unchallenged.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying PR shouldn't be at the table. I'm just questioning how "relations" between corporations and journalists equate with real people hanging out with other real people.

Whereas the digital space has very little claim to the "physical" world and hasn't proven itself in the virtual space, the PR industry resides more comfortably in the physical world, with a superficial grasp of the digital space and an anemic understanding of the virtual one.

In both cases, the ability to connect the dots among the three environments, find the commonalities and establish obvious synergies is barely practiced.

I've seen client after client duped into charging a digital or PR agency with-arguably-the most transformational opportunity we've been given in our professional lifetimes and the result is almost always a shambolic disappointment. From Sony or Wal-Mart's fake blogs to the recent Skittles.com mess, the culprits are almost always digital or PR agencies.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying every digital and/or every PR agency is ill-equipped to deliver against "social." What I am suggesting, however, is there's an acute and fundamental flaw in equating "social" with "digital" or "social" with "earned media."

So what's the solution?

Perhaps the solution is to return to the clichéd "integration" drawing board and figure out how to ensure that all three sides of the equation are equally represented around the table. In this scenario, there's a definite and defined role for an "integrator" -- an independent third party (internal or external) that is the generalist to the physical, digital and virtual specialist verticals, with less interest in ensuring success in any one world than in simply ensuring your success, period.

Having said this, it may also turn out that there is no such thing as a social AOR.

But don't take my word for it. Continue to vest your future in companies that build elaborate destination Web sites, construct parties that nobody shows up to and deliver ostensibly social solutions that reek of control, manipulation and fakery.

Hey, at least people will talk about you, right?

Ski-doodle

A lot of "buzz" has been going on about Skittles "homepage redesign"

For those of you who've been spared from the tempest in a teapot, essentially Skittles decided to go all Modernista! (an agency that made Wikipedia their homepage; irked Wikipedia purists and as you can see, became a little too transparent) on us and cede their entire web presence to "the people" by presenting the amorphous "conversation" as their true digital presence.

You'd think I'd be elated with this authentic demonstration of cession of control to the masses. You'd be 100% wrong.

For starters, I don't believe that we had control to start with and even if we did, the worst thing we could do is to give it 100% to consumers...who quite frankly, don't necessarily even want it.

Let's begin with Skittle's first bowl (a bold attempt at getting a strike, but sadly nothing more than a gutterball) which was to overlay their site against Twitter. Exhbit 1 shows that when left to their own devices, the "conversationalists" (as defined as social media insiders, fishbowl dwellers and navel-gazers) are mishevious little imps who are also a little sado-masochistic.

Translation - Skittle's entire web-presence AKA Twitter is skittled with gems like: @qwghlm More like: ARE SKITTLES MAKING PAEDOPHILES OBESE? or Skittles Skittles Skittles Skittles Capitalist Whore Skittles Skittles Skittles Capitalist Whore.

Like the Octo-Mom, very soon the media coverage turned on their once darling and Skittles swapped out Twitter for Facebook before settling it would appear on banal Wikipedia as their final resting place.

Rumor has it that this was always a short-term "campaign" and Skittles always intended to go back to a more traditional destination website presence i.e. revert back to the way things used to be. I find this suspect at best and loathsome at worst: suspect given Agency.com's (the same agency behind Subway's When we Roll...We Roll Big) involvement in this and their subsequent backpeddling from the Subway kerfuffle and loathsome if this entire move was nothing more than a short term attempt (campaign) at seeking "buzz" or "viral" response.

So why am I so irritated about all of this? Honestly, I'm not entirely myself. I think it's because of the ridiculous lack of strategy behind this program. It epitomizes 90% of all the work out there right now, which continuously demonstrates "tactics in search of strategy" and an acute lack of understanding of the real power of conversational marketing.

I could go on for hours about the myriad of holes in this program. Here are a few examples:

• Exactly how many of Skittle's core target audience are actively on Twitter? Even if the attempt is just to reflect the buzz, it's a classic example of the Revenge of Second Life (there I said it)
• A company's digital presence or storefront is arguably more important and inarguably as important as their physical presence. Why on Earth would a brand cede this equity or asset to an emerging, unproven and unstable platform like Twitter or a more stable, yet decentralized environment like Facebook or Wikipedia? This is 100% cart before the horse
• What exactly is the message or idea behind this entire effort? It's not remotely clear what the intent or goal is? From a functional standpoint, the Wikipedia page is your boring "about us" tab, which is one of many tabs on a traditional website. From a form perspective, I still can't possible think of what the takeaway is....do you?

I do want to add that a lot of people have said, "why chastise them for being bold and innovative; taking a risk; experimenting" - indeed, a big part of my and crayon's message is about experimentation. That may be so, but there is a huge difference between experimenting with versus without any structure, cause, process or methodology. Case in point, would you casually experiment by playing with matches, gunpowder and a gas cylinder...I think not.

And so, although most mainstream media outlets have praised these efforts, I am not jumping up and down with the same excitement (an understatement) Perhaps they're all right and I am wrong. All I know is that brands need to be adopting new approaches, technologies, platforms and experimenting accordingly....but NOT at the expense of a smart, integrated and solid strategic foundation.

It's really that simple.

Just to be clear, I'll gladly share sales data and mea culpa if I'm wrong about this and there is success at the cash register. However, I think the end result is another demonstration that short term buzz or viral success is relative when a) it is fleeting and b) it is predominantly negative.

So final result? At best, a "split" in keeping with the Skittles analogy.

Jaffe Juice #125 - Capitalizing on Consumer Conversations Interview

This episode is really an interview I did for Australia's Marketing Mag, where I responded to a list of questions (see below) for an article they were writing. Audio comments to +1 206 203-3255. Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaffejuice.

Direct download here

iTunes subscription here

Capitalising on Consumer Conversations Online questions - Marketing magazine Digital March issue ‘09

1. Why should marketers get involved in consumers’ conversations online? Aren’t there enough possibilities offline?
2. Why have consumer conversations gone online?
3. What are the advantages of conversing with consumers online? Disadvantages?
4. Should consumer conversations be private, remaining entirely C2C?
5. Where are consumer conversations occurring online?
6. How can marketers find out where their audience is online?
7. What is social media and how is it different from traditional media?
8. Should social media be a part of and integrated into every digital strategy?
9. Is targeting social media for everyone?
10. Is social media only for generations X & Y? (Do you have any examples of engaging with an older audience successfully?)
11. How important is a pre-existing community when making the move into social media?
12. What can marketers do if there aren’t any conversations happening online applicable to their offering?
13. Should marketers ‘create’ their own community or strive to join pre-existing communities?
14. How do marketers target a community? How do marketers go about joining the conversation?
15. What is a community manager; what role do they serve in social media?
16. What tools would you recommend to marketers looking to get into this space?
17. Once marketers have cemented themselves in an online community, how can they look at the ROI? What measures are there out there to quantify the time and resources spent in maintaining online conversations?
18. Should marketers go in with a view of ‘capitalising’ on consumer conversations and/or ‘monetising’ social media?
19. What role does social media play in customer service?
20. Some people have said that social media is just an extension of PR, please discuss…
21. What do you think the future holds for online conversations and social media?

To pay or not to pay, is THAT the question?

Forrester just released a report titled "Add Sponsored Conversations To Your Toolbox," authored by Sean Corcoran.

Kmart gave some bloggers a free shopping spree in exchange for a blog post about the experience — a practice we call sponsored conversation. With appropriate protections for disclosure and authenticity, this practice will take its place alongside public relations and advertising activities in the blogosphere. Marketers should take advantage of sponsored conversation as an entrée into the online conversation. To succeed, you should get to know the bloggers you plan to work with and set expectations across your organization.

What's interesting is how Forrester is pretty deliberately putting this approach into a category of its own, alongside it's predecessors or cohorts (depending on your position), advertising and P.R. and in doing so, plays a part in terms of legitimizing or formalizing an emerging practice.

His colleague Jeremiah Owyang covers it here and Brian Morrissey at Adweek covers it here. Marshall Kirkpatrick from ReadWriteWeb takes a strong counterposition here.

I was interviewed for this piece by Sean, as was Chris Brogan, who participated in the aforementioned Kmart program, sits on the board of IZEA - the company behind the program (and the one formally known as PayPerPost). Chris responds specifically to Marshall with this post.

Here's the thing. In my time in this space thus far in a formal capacity (i.e. crayon), I've worked on two pretty public and well received programs: My ooVoo Day and the Panasonic CES program. In the former example, both Marshall and Chris were participants; in the latter one, Chris was one of the bloggers. I'm not sure I would call either of these programs "sponsored conversations". In fact, crayon calls them "tactical hooks" - a mash-up of the best (practices) of the advertising and social media worlds. Put differently, we believe that influencer outreach should be treated with the same consideration, commitment and investment as a traditional communications program from both a planning and production standpoint.

It's imperative to give influencers both a reason to believe and a reason to behave. Too often, we are lazy, greedy and gratuitous in terms of what we expect from bloggers and the like and essentially what we expect back from them, relative to what we put in, in the first place.

In a personal capacity, I've participated in both the Nikon D80 giveaway and the Sears program (part 2 of IZEA's Kmart 1-2 punch). In both cases, I wouldn't say this remotely smacked of PayPerPost; nor would I say my conversation was sponsored. In some respects,this is no different than a "celebrity" (TRUST me, I'm using that loosely) sponsorship - from loaning a star diamonds on Oscar night to adorning Tiger Woods with a cacophany of swooshes in exchange for mega moolah.

I guess the point is where on the continuum does blogger or influencer outreach fall. Personally, I believe we should be calling this "blogger/influencer outreach" and not "sponsored conversation". Let me also be very clear (and you can see from the definition), that I don't think Sean meant this to be taken in a negative light. I spoke with him and we had a great conversation. I think the real ambiguity and problem lies with us (i.e. the readers of the report; the commentators and so called social media experts etc).

Part of the problem lies with the fact "sponsored conversation" sounds a bit like "paid search" does it not? Putting two terms which seemingly mean exact opposites together and in doing so, creates a rather jarring disconnect.

Part of the problem as well lies in the endless, boring and inaccurate comparison between the new class of content creators (bloggers if you wish) and journalists. They're not...at least for the most part.

And so we come back to the two core issues:

1. Should bloggers be compensated in any way, shape or form for their time, effort, energy, passion and contribution. The answer can only be a resounding YES, with standard terms and conditions (disclosure, transparency etc) which make both common sense and business sense.
2. Is expecting bloggers (in return for aforementioned compensation) to write, talk, post, create etc about their experiences, reflections, ideas, participation crossing a line? The answer here is a resounding NO, provided there is adequate disclosure and transparency.

Come on people. Grow up and wisen up. This is a nascent industry and space which is learning and maturing all the time. What we have here is in many respects no different to how the world was, but in many respects is also incredibly and completely different. It's time to get off our high horses and open our minds, instead of stubbornly holding on to and exhibiting self-righteous, hypocritical and close-minded positions.

Whatever you call them, "sponsored conversations" are here to stay. And just like the vast differences between crap and mediocre creative (lumped together) and inspiring/breakthrough creative, so too will there be a marked difference between influencer programs that stand out from the crowd or get trampled by it.

After a two year loan to the United States, proud sponsors of Michelangelo's "David" are grateful and pleased to return David to Italy...

Snow filled Linkety-Link

About a foot of snow outside which translates into about 10 links of things I discovered but had no time to elaborate on over the last week or so:

• Skittles homepage getting a lot of buzz. Seemingly positive. "Brave marketing" Here's my problem? What the buttons (or perhaps I should say "where") is the strategy? How is this different to Modernista did (note recent recession influenced bungle) with their homepage? And exactly how do you reconcile gems like, "bunnieblog: RT @califmom: skittles skittle skittles skittles capitalist whore skittles skittles skittles skittlesskittles capitalist whore skittles"
• "TV ads still effective - if not more" - ARF study released too early, somehow missing it's scheduled publishing date of April 1st.
• Skip, Scan, Stop, Save and/or Spread? Elevator pitch worth taking to heart re: content creation.
• I participated in the Great Word of Mouth Marketing Experiment recently, along with Andy Sernovitz. The catch was that this took place in Auckland, New Zealand and I was in Atlantis in the Bahamas. The original plan was to use video, but in the end we had to settle for audio only. What you'll "see" is a headshot of me as you listen, but thank your lucky stars you never saw the real me...sitting on the floor of an empty hotel room in nothing but a towel!
• Hard to describe this example of brand idiocy, but for sure RyanAir has a genuine shot of being included in the Hall of Shame for their lack of blogger relations (assuming this is accurate)
• Ad Age piece on how events are suffering the effects of the economy. Ultimately it's one of the many ironies and contradictions we're currently facing: we stop investing in learning, networking, and lead gen when arguably, we need it most.
• I know, I know...the last thing we need is YET another list of corporate Twitter accounts worth following, which is why I won't share this one. Oops I did it again.
• Twanalysis Paralysis. Whilst I appreciate the need to create new metrics in order to understand the social world we now live in, when is too much, too much? Here's a new service called Twitalyzer that introduces, Influence, Signal, Generosity, Velocity and Clout. I've given you my scores which as you'll see rate high on signal to noise (???) but low on velocity (read: I have better things to do) and clout (read: ass kissers). Not sure I'm buying...
• Just to show you that I'm not obsessed with Twitter, Robin Grant gives another thoughtful post on "brands and Twitter"
• Working the room through social media. Interesting post which references Gary Vaynerchuk comparing social media to "working a room" versus broadcast media as "giving a presentation". It's an interesting perspective, although I do see several challenges associated with this argument, particularly when equating "cost" (of doing business) on an apples to apples basis...but hey, it's all part of the conversation, right?