Moving On

Like all social media users, I'm a restless and fickle consumer of applications. If a bright, shiny, something else beckons me, I'm off to give it a try. Of course, the joke's on me because perfection is transitory and only lasts until the next new shiny thing is launched. Rinse and repeat.



I recently started using Posterous, sort of in stealth, so I could see if it worked for me. I seems to, so I'm going to be blogging from there now.

I'll keep the blogger account open, but not updated. Or updated less than I have lately.



Blog: http://lindaziskind.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lindare
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/lindaziskind

Big Biz Embraces Social Media, Sort Of

The Center for Marketing Research (CMR) at U.Mass Dartmouth just released a study examining the Fortune 500's adoption and use of social media, specifically blogging and Twitter. In the typically prosaic vernacular of university research, the report is titled: "The Fortune 500 and Social Media: A Longitudinal Study of Blogging and Twitter Usage by America’s Largest Companies." Google it and you'll find media properties from AdWeek to Welding & Gases Today blasting the results of the study: "TWITTER IS THE FASTEST GROWING SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNEL AMONG FORTUNE 500", "BIG BUSINESS EMBRACING TWITTER".

Articles about the report tout its impressive findings:

• Thirty-five percent of Fortune 500 corporations had an active Twitter account as of last year, and by active, they mean that there was at least one post in the last 30 days. 
• Forty-seven percent of the top 100 companies on the Fortune list are tweeting. 
• Four of the top five companies on the list "consistently post on their Twitter accounts." The one laggard was Exxon Mobil, who apparently read the report and opened an account four months ago.

Exciting numbers for sure, but I was a little concerned about their criteria for "active" accounts, so I took a look for myself. I reviewed 7 of the 173 company Twitter accounts that fit the study's criteria for inclusion. Of the 7, only 1 was an account that I consider well executed - @homedepot. Home Depot meets all of the criteria that should be used in any kind of social media study worth undertaking. This criteria represents baseline best practices:

• Has a Twitter handle that's intuitive and easy to find
• Tweets an average of 5-10 times a day
• Has indications of a social media policy, based on a dedicated social media team who are identified on the account and identify themselves in Tweets, and having made some kind of attempt to control rogue Twitter accounts that use their brand name
• Follows back a reasonable percentage of their followers
• Has a very high level of interactions with followers
• Has a very low general promotion to follower interaction ratio, or maintains a separate account just for specials and promotions
• Tracks brand name mentions and proactively interacts
• Integrate your social media channels and reference each on the others

This isn't to suggest that the other 165 company accounts are, or aren't, true examples of social media. In fact, Bank of America, GE, and Walmart get great scores on many of the criteria. But they stumble of poor branding and confusing, competing accounts. So, before any more hyperbolic headlines are launched, people, it's worth remembering that opening a Twitter account and broadcasting company information aren't the same things as having a genuine social media program and actually participating in social media. They're just the Twitter equivalent of dancing around in your underwear thinking you're Madonna.

Here are some observations about the other 6 Twitter accounts I reviewed: 
Conoco Phillips (@conocophillips), Chevron (@Chevron), and Walgreens (@Walgreens) are all underwear-dancers. Conoco doesn't even pretend to be interested in social media. It's account looks like someone ordered the marketing dept. to do something about social media and the buck was passed downward until it hit the receptionists desk. Their Twitter home page has no bio or link back to their website; in nine months of Tweeting they've only posted 58 times (so much for the validity of the "once in the last 30 days" criteria); and there's not a single tweet that interacts with or retweets someone. 

Chevron is only slightly better. They have an "official Twitterer", who is identified on their Twitter homepage bio and they post once or twice a day, at least 4 days a week. However, there's very little interaction with other Tweeters. Worst of all, their execution indicates a lack of any clear social media strategy. They're a company with a constituency ranging from analysts to motorists and, in using a single account to try and reach everyone, their tweets are a confusing melange of topics.


Walgreens tweets are 140-character shopping circulars: 40% off 4x6 and 5x7 prints! Get $5 off any one L'Oreal Paris moisturizer! A lack of a corporate social media policy has resulted in a ragtag group of mostly unused individual store accounts and a placeholder shareholder account that may or may not be theirs. Additionally, there's no evidence of tracking brand mentions or interaction with Tweeters, which has resulted in missed opportunities to interact with and help unhappy customers, like this one:

msgina_g On a mission to Madera to get my moms meds because 

walgreens won't transfer and she needs them she's in alot of pain

msgina_g Sometimes there really should be exceptions to policy... 

Don't get me started when it comes to my mama.

msgina_g Mission complete... Now back on the 99 I go.... 

Need to be in Modesto by 10.... Jesus take the wheel... No traffic pls

msgina_g Finally ending my night 3 trips to walgreens 

and 4 hrs driving later mamas resting

The good news for Bank of America is that they have a well identified (pix and names) Twitter team, great interaction with users, and clear evidence that they track brand mentions:

carvajal_jose Bank of America sucks=\ they couldn't figure out why my account was negative. 

And they Gave me a bs answer for it. Good thing I'm leaving.
BofA_Help @carvajal_jose We're here to assist customers. Were you able to get your situation resolved?^SB
 
The bad news is, as you can see in the exchange, they need a better identity. A search for Bank of America accounts on Twitter delivers a page of results, many of which are probably not "official", but which tie up their name. In fact, there is a locked and unused bofa__help account that makes the search for them even more confusing.

General Electric (@GE_Reports) also has a naming problem, as well as an apparent corporate communication problem that's reflected in their multiple Twitter accounts. Do a Twitter search for GE and nine accounts come up, all with the GE logo as their icon (in varying approximations of the logo's color) and all are official GE accounts. The problem is, @GE_Reports isn't one of them. @GE_Report's icon is a photo of Megan, their Tweeter. It's the main, consumer-facing GE account, yet it's the only one that looks bogus. In a sad example of brand confusion, none of the accounts reference each other, or even follow more than one or two of their brand siblings.

@GE_Reports links to a GE Reports website which, like the Twitter account, makes it clear that they don't quite get the "social" part of social media: "GEreports.com is a simple, no-frills-way of communicating what’s happening at GE. Our goal is to be a resource for people who are interested in learning more about GE." The absence of any reference to communicating with or learning about their customers speaks volumes.

And finally, there's Walmart. As you might expect, Walmart's social media efforts are chock full of guidelines. In fact, they even have rules and guidelines for their Twitter followers. Sad, but true. They have 13 official Twitter accounts for the US market. And despite the very detailed description of their Twitter account naming conventions in their user guidelines: "Unless otherwise noted, U.S.-based Walmart approved Twitter users will follow the following naming conventions of “business unit + name/category.” For example, “walmartmeeting,” “samsclubrobert,” and “walmartgames," @accessototal (Concerts and interviews with your favorite Latin artists) managed to slip by the Walmart police. So if you would like to tweet about the defective dustbuster you just bought, you'll have to figure out if you're talking to @Walmartmeeting, @Walmartspecials, @Walmartnews, @Walmartcheckout, @WalmartBeauty, @WalmartKevin, or @WalmartMP3. And search for a Walmart account on Twitter and the only listing on the first results page that looks legit, @Walmart_shop, actually isn't.

I'm glad the Fortune 500 companies are recognizing that social media isn't a fad, going away, or not important. But by lumping the faulty social media executions in with the good ones, we taint the whole group.

It's All Just A Little Bit of History Repeating

This is a post about AT&T, but first I'd like to take a little peek at recent history.

Remember AOL? No, not the sad shell of a company that TW is finally having surgically removed. I'm talking about the AOL of the mid-90s. The muscle-bound, money-machine that scooped up new subscribers by the millions.

Well, way back in 1996, that AOL, anticipating an unfulfilled hunger for online-time, and anxious to scoop up even more subscribers, made a bold move and switched from hourly billing to flat-rate pricing for unlimited access. If you're old enough to have participated in those heady years of tech nirvana, you remember what happened. System traffic jams of unimaginable proportions. And they were unimaginable because even though AOL had done usage modeling, made informed predictions, and beefed up their server farms, they weren't even close. Usage demands surged past their most optimistic expectations leaving them reading headlines like "America Offline." There was almost nothing wrong with their usage modeling formula, they'd just neglected to incorporate one important data point: human behavior. This was an all-you-can-eat plan that didn't give you heartburn, so when users were offered an unlimited Internet connection for a flat rate, they did the logical thing. They just kept it running.

That same year, AT&T got into the ISP biz and launched WorldNet, also for a flat-rate. And, what do you know, they also ran into usage issues. In fact, by 1998, accessibility rates during peak times were so dismal that they infuriated their users (isn't it cute how some things never change?) by arbitrarily cutting them off after three hours. 

At first, Mike Keady, a company spokesman, announced that although it was a test, they'd probably make it policy. But he later withdrew that statement and said they'd study the results before making a decision. He explained that the policy was implemented to save the network from overcrowding. Now here's where it gets interesting. Keady said, "We implemented the time-out simply because some people are hogging the network. We found that 4 percent of users were using 50 percent of the resources." *

So, at long last, here's my point. AT&T's WorldNet experience was miserable to all involved, but shouldn't it have been instructive? Isn't it a fundamental rule of any organization to analyze failure and course-correct to avoid repeating costly mistakes? Guess not because in an extraordinary example of "a little bit of history repeating" (song credit: Propellerheads), AT&T seems to resurrected their 1998 script and has handed it to AT&T president and CEO of Mobility and Consumer Markets, Ralph de la Vega.

In response to dismal iPhone service, particularly in high-use urban areas like San Francisco and Manhattan, according to an AP report by Peter Svensson, de la Vega told stated a group of investors that while AT&T is upgrading its network, it's also giving high-bandwidth users incentives to "reduce or modify their usage." He said that 4 percent of AT&S's smartphone users were consuming 40 percent of their broadband capability, and "the company is [...] working on getting the data hogs to cut down their usage." OMG! It's deja vu all over again.

As an iPhone user who lives in Manhattan, I have a high level of interest in AT&T's service problems. Except, if I'm understanding Mr. de la Vega correctly, he's saying it's not AT&T's lack of performance at issue, he's saying it's actually my fault. That even though I'm paying a nice chunk of change for a service plan that includes Internet connection, downloads and data transfer, I should have understood that when they said "unlimited" what they really meant was, "unlimited up to the point where your selfish, bandwidth hogging habits begin to tax our insufficient broadband capabilities, silly girl."

OK, Ralph. My bad. But wait, remember 1998? When AT&T thought the answer to an overtaxed data network was to cut people off? How'd that strategy work out?

"There is fashion, there is fad
Some is good, some is bad
And the joke is rather sad
That it’s all just a little bit of history repeating"

History Repeating by the Propellerheads

"AT&T tests access time limits" Paul Festa

Staff Writer, CNET News

Rock & Roll, Christmas, and Brand: Thoughts from the N. J. Turnpike

As part of my post-Thanksgiving holiday return to the city, I spent 7 hours driving through 3 states, taking assorted friends and family members to their homes. 7 hours worth of driving can give a person ample time for reflection. 7 hours worth of Christmas music on the radio can give a person a nasty migraine. But at about the 5 hour mark of my odyssey, something became remarkably clear. Every year, it's practically a requirement for recording artists to release Christmas songs, sung and orchestrated with numbing sameness. Even Dylan, with his aural version of  40-grit sandpaper, delivers the traditional songs in traditional versions.  But hidden within the Christmas music oeuvre, there exists a small collection of wonderful songs, familiar to the ear, yet modified to reflect the unique essence of the singer. Something people in marketing would call "brand identity".  And in a monthlong Christmas music marathon, these are the songs we'll remember. 

Here's an example. Since 1934, when it was written, "Santa Claus is Coming To Town" has been covered by everyone from Aerosmith to Wynona. Listen to a handful of the dozens of versions, and, save for some vocal embellishments, you'll find they're all faithful renditions of a perky children's tune. Except for one. Bruce Springsteen took the song and and did something that none of the other artists did. He didn't simply sing the lyrics and tune, he integrated his sound into the song. It's recognizable as the "Santa Claus" we all know, yet it's completely unique. The tune has been subtly modified, and from the arrangement to the driving intensity of the delivery, it's a Springsteen song as surely as if he'd written it.


OK, that's all very nice, but why is this important?  Thank you for asking. It's important because sometimes, in all of our conversations and postings about businesses and social media, we forget to talk about brand. When businesses begin to utilize social media tactics and channels, they still need to be aware of doing so in a relevant and consistent brand voice. It's wonderful to have employees tweet for your company, but have you provided them with your brand messaging guidelines? Do they understand how to communicate in a voice and tone consistent with your brand?

  
Developing and communicating a strong and relevant brand identity has been critical for every component of traditional marketing efforts. It's no less important in the social media world. Online, it's your conversations and interactions that are key to conveying who you are and what you stand for. What are your words saying about your brand?


P.S. If you're interested, another song that transcend holiday mediocrity is the version of "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" by James Taylor. A melancholy version, as it was meant to be, with reinstated original lyrics, "...if the fates allow. Until then we'll have to muddle through somehow." And, while you're at it, listen to the Judy Garland version (same link), who sang the original.

Social Media Strategy Step One: Answer These 5 Questions...

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal Technology Report referenced a surprising finding from a recent Nielsen study: 

"In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the U.S. as well as several European countries, Australia and Brazil....up 21% from 229 million in August 2009. But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31% to 301.5 million people."

The good news is that more and more organizations are taking notice and rolling out their own social media initiatives, or making preparations to do so. However, what many of them are failing to acknowledge is that social media isn't a one-size-fits-all channel. As your organization begins to put together a plan for social media, consider these five questions. The answers can help ensure your initiative will meet your goals strategically and cost effectively.


#1: "Whom am I talking to?" If your organization is like many others, it has multiple constituencies. Clients, customers, strategic partners, vendors, donors, the media, your board, the list goes on and on. The point is, your communication objectives are different for each of them, which means that before you start talking, determine whom you're speaking to.


#2: "What am I communicating?" If this sound like a 'stupid simple' question, don't be fooled. It's where many smart organizations get tripped up. No doubt you've put together reams of branding documents with details about your organization down to the molecular level. Save it for the brochure. Social media isn't a monologue about your brand. It's a dialog with your constituency. Sure, branding is part of it, but the most important thing to communicate to your social media community is that you're listening to what they have to say.


#3: "Who speaks?" Social media is about conversations, so you must determine who in your organization is going to be doing the talking. There's many way correct ways to go about it - for example some organizations have a team of social media communicators who are identified when they're on duty, i.e., www.twitter.com/jetblue. Some organizations have a single social media communicator, like Kate at Safeway's Community Blog. However, avoid being anonymous. No one wants to have a conversation with a logo. Social media thrives on honesty and transparency.


#4. "What do we do about online criticism?" If someone takes the time to post a complaint or criticism, consider it your lucky day. It means they think enough of your organization or product to want you to get it right or at least give you a chance to respond. It means you have the opportunity to not only save a relationship, but strengthen it and burnish your reputation. So make sure your social communicators know how to address complaints in a positive way (i.e., "We're sorry you encountered that problem. Here are the steps we're taking to ensure that it gets fixed...."), are empowered to act to remedy an issue, and know the escalation hierarchy.


#5. "What social media channels are the right ones for us?" This is one of the most important questions organization can ask themselves. The answer is - it depends. Among other things, it depends on:

• The answers you come up with for questions 1-3
• What your objectives are
• How your social media executions will integrate with, augment, or replace your website
• How much budget, time and/or staff you can commit

photo: Leo Reynolds 

Mad Men 2009

"He not busy being born is busy dying."
Bob Dylan,
"It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)"

Few people would argue that advertising is going through troubled times and that some sort of metamorphoses is necessary for its survival. The specifics of that change, and how it might be successfully implemented, is a reasonable topic for debate. But only the most entrenched and myopic insider would argue to defend the current model of an industry as broken as advertising.

That, however is what seemed to be happening in the pages of Ad Age last week. Jeff Goodby, co-chairman and creative director of an ad agency, Goodby Silverstein, has taken umbrage at the central thesis of a new book by Bob Garfield, a radio and print journalist, but most famous for being a snarky ad critic for Ad Age. The book, "The Chaos Scenario," posits something that most people reading this (hi mom) probably already know - there is an "historic reordering of media, marketing and commerce triggered by the revolution in digital technology."

Goodby, exhibiting a stunning obliviousness to the seismic shifts happening in how the world communicates and consumes media, published a rebuttal to Garfield: "Sorry, Bob, Adworld's Not Dying." Goodby pooh-poohs the idea that the almighty :30 broadcast ad is one cough away from flatlining. To be fair, he's not totally blinkered - he admits that the ad and media world are looking a little thin and pale these days. But his prescription for a cure is at best, dodgy, at worst, deluded. He claims salvation is just a matter of pasting advertising's outdated business model onto the Internet and creating "advertising that people like." He goes on to say:

"...I firmly believe we don't want to be advertised to in private, with nothing to discuss around the water cooler. We like the social interaction of enjoying or hating these ham-fisted corporate efforts together,"

Now there's a revealing choice of words. Is "discussion around the water cooler" really a useful measurement of ad effectiveness? Because if I were a brand and the choice for my ad dollars was A). Produce fodder for water cooler conversation, or B.) Create an open communication channel and ongoing dialog with customers who pro-actively seek out my messaging, I'd have to go with the dialog.

The truth is, the current business models for advertising, media, and the music business are indeed dead. But that doesn't mean we eulogize and bury them. They'll be reborn as something new, just not in any form that Goodby is likely to recognize or be comfortable with. As the music industry is discovering, you can spend you last dime going after every 14 year old who file shares (yeah, as if these guys never made and shared mix-tapes in the '80s) but you're not going to stop the practice. It just boggles my mind to think that they'd rather go down protecting their status quo than try to figure out how to transform themselves into something that fits this new world order. Meanwhile, a computer company (one that has definitely found our electronic device G spot) stepped in to fill the void and gave us iTunes - new world order 1.0.

I say, wake up and smell the Twitter. It's not that ..."we don't want to be advertised to in private." We just don't want to be advertised to - full stop. The world is engaging in a global conversation where everyone, if they want to, gets a say. Sure, a ton of it is babble and clap trap, but so is a ton of TV and I still manage to find my way to "Glee", and "Mad Men" and "Weeds". Good stuff has a way of making its presence known. Passive media consumption is over. As is appointment viewing, single channel media distribution, and brand messaging that doesn't invite conversation. Today's consumers expect to be heard. Technology has given them a voice and they like the sound of it.

So, yeah, advertising is dead, but that's the good news. Because the advertising Goodby is talking about, while no doubt, entertaining, can't begin to create the kind of consumer/brand relationship that's found in the interactive context of the Web. And, like it or not, advertising is being reborn as something new.


Permalink


advertising, Jeff Goodby, Bob Garfield, marketing, brand conversation, digital technology, Twitter, media

PR and Damage Control in the Age of Twitter

Ashton, Oprah, Dominos, and Susan. Names that have one important thing in common - they were all involved in seminal social media events. I don't know if last week was the tipping point for the phenomenon we call social media, or not, but it sure felt like it to me.

Gaga over a middle-aged, plump, frizzy-haired goddess.
On Saturday, April 11th, the by now galactically famous episode of "Britain's Got Talent" aired in the UK and the glorious Susan Boyle entranced an audience of skeptics with a voice of extraordinary beauty. The official YouTube posting of the performance appeared almost immediately and garnered over 800,000 viewings in 24 hours. By Wednesday, the video had been viewed 5.6 million times and, as of today, the video reports over 32 million views. According to an article in Mashable, however, tracking company, Visible Measures, that tracks over 150 video sharing sites, counted 93.2 million views on Sunday and predicted that number would hit over 100 million today. Although the press covered the YouTube frenzy, it was e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook that spread the word, person to person. The kinds of information that are typically spread in this way, like jokes, urban legends, apocryphal stories, and corporate blunders, have never quite hit the numbers necessary show the footdraggers that we are no longer operating in beta - social media has launched. But after witnessing how quickly the world can coalesce into a massive and powerful communication organism, only the staunchest Luddite can deny the shift. And they do so at their own peril.

Ummm, make mine without cheese.
And peril is exactly what Dominos Pizza found itself in last Monday when two astoundingly stupid Dominos employees posted a video on YouTube showing one of them stuffing cheese up his nose before he used it to garnish a pizza, among other health code violations. That evening, Tim McIntyre, a Dominos spokesperson, was alerted to the video by someone who'd seen it online. When company executives learned about the video the next day, they made a fatefully disastrous decision to do nothing in the hopes of not fueling the fire. With no presence or experience in social media, they were sadly unaware that information is no longer controlled by corporations or by the press. Technology has set it free, put it in the hands of the public, and it dances to its own tune these days. There are new rules for corporate communication, and the rules say the conversation is happening, with or without you. If you don't proactively own it, someone else will. On Wednesday, with its reputation damaged and perception of quality in negative numbers, Dominos opened a Twitter account and posted a video on YouTube of it's CEO, Patrick Doyle, offering a heartfelt apology. It's a start, but when Mr. McIntyre was quoted in a NY Times article the next day saying, “Well, we were doing and saying things, but they weren’t being covered in Twitter,” I suspect there's still a bit of a learning curve. Social media isn't broadcast. If the company isn't using it to monitor and participate in conversations, they're missing the point.

Dude, where's your tweeps?
Late Thursday night, Ashton Kutcher became the first person on the planet to snag one million followers on Twitter, beating out his rival, CNN, by only a few hours and a couple of thousand followers. And what does that have to do with anything? Well, look at it this way: A 31-year old college drop-out actor, famous for producing a show about pulling pranks on celebs has succeeded in aggregating a willing listening audience of 1 million people, while the MBA suits at Dominos, who launched their Twitter account with the obtuse name of dpzinfo, have managed, in the midst of the most press they've ever had, to only round up 1,333 followers. And Oprah? She opened her Twitter account on Friday. As of today, 3 days later, she has 424,986 followers.


And now, on an entirely personal note, a message to Susan Boyle: My dear, you sing for all of the underestimated, ignored, written-off women of the world. Your voice is an instrument played with unimaginable grace and purity. But what moves me to tears is you, as you stand there, sloughing off 47 years of being invisible, confident in your gift and knowing that, at last, you are on the right stage, at the right time. You knew what you had, and now all the world is gaga over a middle-aged, plump, frizzy-haired goddess. Brava!


social media, Susan Boyle, Ashton Kutcher, Dominos Pizza, Oprah, You Tube, Twitter, Facebook

Marketing Conversations: Listen & Speak. Repeat.

Photo: Kimberly Faye

Peter Kim, whose eponymous blog can be counted on for smart insights and analysis, recently posted about the need to take the use of social media by brands to the next evolutionary level. His big points (which I totally agree with) are:
- Brands are using social media to be disruptive and get attention, but aren't using it to create relationships with their customers.
- Ad agencies are using social media the same way they've always used the web, as something scotch-taped onto their "real" campaign. Still clueless about real integration.
- As the Cluetrain Manifesto pointed out 10 years ago, companies are still clinging to the notion that employee, customers, partners, vendors, are all separate markets. They're not. Not only do the boundaries often overlap (employees are also customers, clients might also be partners) but these markets want to talk to each other. And those conversations are the ones that companies need to be enabling and participating in, if they're going to be competitive and survive.

Chris Hall referenced this post in his blog, but I think he may have missed the point a bit when he admonished online blogger and twitterer activists from "imposing their collective wills upon millions of other group members because they have realized that they have a platform."

First of all, I'd like to know how he assumes that this "vocal" minority doesn't speak for the majority. And second, taking a step back and considering the historical context, might provide a better insight into what's happening now, and what we, as marketers, should be doing to bring value to the conversation.

Of course, I had an opinion about all of this, and responded the following on Chris' blog:

I think what we’re witnessing is the messy business of evolution. For years (actually, forever), consumers had no voice. Marketing that drove the sale of products was a one-way conversation. They spoke, we listed. Recourse for complaints was limited to boiling your blood pressure trying to reach a human in customer service, sending a letter that, if you were lucky, got a form-letter reply, or boycotting the product which provided little beyond depriving yourself of something you probably needed.

Web 2.0 gave consumers a voice and the audience to speak to. Heady stuff for a group kept silent for so long. So it’s not surprising that anyone who got a little taste of the power of the pulpit could sometimes be a little indiscriminate in its use. Who hasn’t seethed at the cable industry’s arrogance, incompetence, and unapologetic disinterest in customer relationships? So bravo to the guy that recorded and YouTubed his cable service repair guy napping on the sofa because he’d been on hold with the home office for so long that he’d just dozed off. And bravo to the Motrin Moms for finally voicing the anger of so many women at Madison Avenue’s often reductive and insulting attempts to portray the complex balancing act that women who are some combination of wives, mothers, and workers, have to pull off.

It’s also not surprising that companies are reacting by sometimes overreacting. They’re not used to hearing from the great world that lives on the other side of the tv screen. Those nameless, faceless “target demos” who make up their customer universe. It must be a little scary to hear their voice after all these years.

I think, as marketers, consultants, and advisors, it’s our job to help both sides understand this new context. Motrin missed a huge opportunity to engage with this group of angry moms. As the incredibly prescient Cluetrain Manifesto guys (Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, & David Weinberger) wrote, way back in 1999(!), “Markets are conversations. People are speaking to each other in a powerful new way. These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge. As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally. People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors. There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.”

Instead of their knee-jerk reaction, Motrin should have started a real conversation. What were the specific things about the ads that offended women. If this isn’t the right way to portray them, tell us what is? How do these women see themselves? What are the important things in their lives?

It’s not a matter of simply listening. Conversation is an exchange of information, thoughts and ideas. The last word goes to Cluetrain: “The community of discourse is the market. Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die.”

What's your opinion?
Photo: Kimberly Faye



marketing, social media ,social networking, cluetrain manifesto

There Must Be a Pony

I don't think there's much argument that 2008 was an annus horribilis of the first degree. Apart from the truly historic election of Barak Obama as the first black president of the United States, I'd be happy to have everything else wiped from my hard drive.

One might think that there's little room for joyful thought in wrapping up such a relentlessly miserable year. But there are some who can find a silver lining in even the gloomiest scenario. There's an often repeated story about a young boy who was such an audacious optimist that, when presented with roomful of horse dung, he grew ecstatic. When he was asked the reason for his seemingly inappropriate joy, he exclaimed, "With all this horse shit, there must be a pony."

That kid is clearly not related to me. But, as part of my 2009 resolution to be more of a glass-half-full sort of person, I will say that even though the vast expanse of horse poop covering most of 2008 doesn't excite me, it turns out some of that manure really did signify a pony. Or three.

So, in no particular order, here are three things from 2008 that make me want to say, giddy-up:


1. The iPhone App Store.
Oh. My. God. I get dizzy from the sheer number of possibilities. Solutions for problems you haven't even thought of yet. Utilities to accomplish everything you've ever wanted to do, except, perhaps, one to help you tell the 12 year old HR assistant who just pink-slipped you what circle of hell to go inhabit.

There are over 10,000 apps available, and users have downloaded over 300 million of them, which would indicate I'm not the only one gone ga-ga for them. But with that sort of tsunami of interest and usage, it sort of begs the question, why aren't brands making better marketing use of them? Like desktop widgets, iPhone apps can be an extremely effective and inexpensive way to reach users, provide them with branded utility, and interact with them. Yet, only a few brands have jumped into the iPhone pool and many of them still seem to be tone-deaf to the interactive music of applications.

Michael Arrington's Sept. post about the app, Sonic Lighter, in TechCrunch, illustrates this perfectly. It seems Zippo is offering an iPhone app of a virtual lighter. You can choose from limited lighter designs, flip the lighter open, blow on the flame and see it flicker, and make the flame tilt. Even though the app is free, one use and you've exhausted its fun potential. In contrast, Sonic Lighter by Smule selling at .99 is a bargain at twice the price. Smule has cleverly recognized and tapped into our innate desire to connect which is driving the explosion and popularity of social networking sites. Sonic lighter users can opt to share their location information and have their "Kilojoules" (time spent burning your lighter flame) illustrated on an map of the earth. The map also lists rankings by geography, creating the potential for competitions. Oh, and you can also use your lighter to ignite another iPhone lighter. As Arrington points out: "Unlike its competitors, it’s effectively leveraging location awareness and social networking/human team building instincts to create a bit of a phenomenon. The result is a viral spread."



2. Twitter
Yes, I know Twitter debuted in 2006. When I signed on in late 2007, it had already had it's big coming-of-age at SXSW. But it was really this past year that the tool finally became an important two-way communication channel for brands and people. In April, Michael Arrington (What's with all this Arrington love? Must broaden sources.) wrote the now-famous blog post about his experience with Comcast on Twitter. With the ability to monitor the conversation about their business, companies are turning customer service into customer first response. The typical scenario of public whining about a company's missteps can now have a different ending.

In an article this past September, Business Week noted that Dell, GM, Kodak, Whole Foods, and H&R Block have also established Twitter accounts to communicate with consumers. Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos uses his Zappos Twitter account to communicate directly with consumers, letting them know what city he's in, where he's speaking, and posting occasional contests, turning the position of CEO into the company's envoy to the people.

For me, personally, the tool has been invaluable. I have found a wide range of articulate and insightful people to follow and interact with. I've met and become friends with people whose live intersect with mine, but whom I never might have met in the real world. Like life, Twitter is sometimes brilliant, often surprising, sometimes mundane, but never, ever boring.


3. Crowdsourcing & Geospatial Web
In a June 2006 article in Wired, Jeff Howe wrote about "distributed labor networks using the Internet to exploit the spare processing power of millions of human brains". He called it crowdsourcing.

"The open source software movement proved that a network of passionate, geeky volunteers could write code just as well as the highly paid developers at Microsoft or Sun Microsystems. Wikipedia showed that the model could be used to create a sprawling and surprisingly comprehensive online encyclopedia. And companies like eBay and MySpace have built profitable businesses that couldn’t exist without the contributions of users."

Online ventures built around the concept of crowdsourcing have only gotten stronger, from YouTube and iStockphoto, to the online film production social networking site Massify, which, in a project that used the collaborative efforts of film fans and filmmakers, is creating the first crowdsourced film.

All well and good, you say, but old news. Well, it turns out, there's not only wisdom in crowds, there's buried treasure. The most recent issue of Release 2.0 considers the impact of adding of location-based information - the GeoWeb to the already valuable and potentially lucrative predictive abilities of collective information. The most recent example of the resulting functionality of this is Google Flu Trends. It seems that people suffering the first symptoms of flu use search as a first pass at self-diagnosis, typing in terms like "flu symptoms" before they finally shlep themselves to a doctor. The smart folks over at Google noticed clusters of the search terms appearing and researched five years worth of flu symptom keyword search data, which they then mapped against Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports. The resulting findings showed a strong correlation between increased geographic based searches and actual outbreaks of influenza and other similar illnesses. What makes this application all the more important is that Flu Trends beats the CDC reports by about 2 weeks. As the New York Times reported:

"In early February, for example, the C.D.C. reported that the flu cases had recently spiked in the mid-Atlantic states. But Google says its search data show a spike in queries about flu symptoms two weeks before that report was released. Its new service at google.org/flutrends analyzes those searches as they come in, creating graphs and maps of the country that, ideally, will show where the flu is spreading.

The C.D.C. reports are slower because they rely on data collected and compiled from thousands of health care providers, labs and other sources. Some public health experts say the Google data could help accelerate the response of doctors, hospitals and public health officials to a nasty flu season, reducing the spread of the disease and, potentially, saving lives."

Cool, huh?
So I'm thinking that 2009 has the potential to be great. Granted, we've been pounded into such a deep hole that any glimmer of light would be a huge improvement. But I'm thinking that we're going to go way beyond that. It was the power of social networking and collective influence that brought Obama into office - our collective influence. Hmmm, just imagine what we can all do if we put our minds to it.


marketing, brands ,app store, twitter,collective widsom, crowdsourcing, geoweb

"Who Said This Isn't Media"

The "Digital" column in this past Wednesday's AdAge.com had a surprising headline: "P&G Digital Guru Not Sure Marketers Belong on Facebook."

It seems that P&G's general manager-interactive marketing and innovation, Ted McConnell, in speaking to a program presented by the Ad Club of Cincinnati, thinks that social networks are the wrong places for brands to be. The Ad Age article quotes him as saying, "What in heaven's name made you think you could monetize the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?"

Hey Ted, a friendly piece of advice, in today's job market you may want to keep your profound lack of understanding of the social networking world to yourself. You know, it's bad enough you tasted shoe-leather with the Facebook line. But then you go and follow it up with: "Who said this is media?" Media is something you can buy and sell. Media contains inventory. Media contains blank spaces. Consumers weren't trying to generate media. They were trying to talk to somebody. So it just seems a bit arrogant. ... We hijack their own conversations, their own thoughts and feelings, and try to monetize it."

His Ad Club speech might have worked out better if he'd been invited to participate in P&G and Google's -job-swap program, where, in an effort for P&G'ers to understand Internet users better, and for Google to win a larger part of P&G's ad budget, staffers from each company spend time at each other's staff training programs and business meetings. (WSJ, Nov. 19)

Or he could have read Danny Flamberg's excellent and thoughtful recent post on MediaPost's Social Media Insider, titled, "Making Sense of Social Media."

Or, he could have simply done some homework to get a little historical context.

To anyone who has been paying attention, the proliferation of social media shouldn’t be a surprise. Ever since 1985 when Stewart Brand and Larry Brilliant began the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link, which became The WELL, people have been flocking to converse with, learn from, and establish relationships with each other in an environment free conventional time and geographic restrictions. These “virtual communities”, as Howard Rheingold called them, were powerful lures to a universal, deep-seated desire to reach out and be social in a way that creates local, people-operated neighborhoods in a global context.

This ability to create communities around shared interests, as well as the instantaneous connection of email was a powerful driver of the first online services, like AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.

Social communities like Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn, are simply the latest incarnations of this quest to connect. From the start, though, marketers have failed to understand the Web as the interactive environment that it is, and have continued to engage as if it’s one of the passive mediums they’re comfortable with. It’s as if brands and marketers are the online equivalent of the ugly American tourist who travels abroad, and when the locals don’t understand their requests, simply repeat it slower and louder, as if the listener is simple-minded and deaf.

We need to help brands (as well as brand "Digital Gurus) understand that the Web isn’t a magazine with hyperlinks or TV with text. It’s a constantly evolving environment where information will always want to be free, it’s a democratic publishing forum, and it’s a place where dishonesty is outed at the speed of sound. So, s’il vous plait, before you open your mouth, learn to speak the language.

*Photo by Tarnie

The Year of the Depend Undergarment

[ed. note: I began this posting back in May, before my summer-of-too-much-work-and-too-little-time, before my blog & my tweets became casualties of my schedule, and before the extraordinary talent of David Foster Wallace was silenced by his suicide. RIP, DFW]

Infinite Jest, David Foster Wallace's 1996 novel, predicted a not-so-distant future, where brand advertising has infiltrated our lives so completely that even time is sponsored. Calendar years are no longer designated by numbers, they're named after products:
Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar, Year of the Tucks Medicated Pad, and Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment.

Back then, I thought the idea of sponsored time was humorous, in the way that a real idea exaggerated beyond logic becomes funny. But today, I'm thinking maybe not so much funny as prescient. It seems like everyone is looking for the last remaining untapped media areas - those bits of everyday life hiding in plain sight, until someone says: "Doh! Let's put an ad here!" The sides of buses, the roofs of taxis, wrapped around cars, everywhere you look, blank space has been infiltrated by advertising. From sports and arts venues that get stuck with the prosaic names of of their sponsors (Monster Park? PNC Bank Arts Center?), to the ads laminated to the bottom of the security bins I recently saw at Richmond Airport (Zappos: "Getting shoes through security isn't always fast. Buying them is.") branding is popping up everywhere.

All of that media ingenuity got me to thinking, what's left? Where is the rest of the still unexploited real estate that captures eyeballs in a meaningful way? I came up with a few ideas. Feel free to add to them, steal them, or come to the conclusion that some things may be better off left unsponsored.

1. Booty Banners. Witnessed walking past a NYC construction site: two cute young women in tight jeans sashaying; men in hard hats staring and hooting. Me, thinking hmmmm, is there are beer brand on the planet that wouldn't love to see armies of young men follow their logo down the street?

2. Elevator Door :15s. Yeah, yeah, you're thinking I must have been living under a rock for the past few years - elevatortainment tv is old news. OK, it is. But ads run on the outside of the doors, where all attention is focused in efforts to telepathically summon the elevator car, is new news.

3. Subway Pop-Up Stores. It seems that no matter how much the MTA raises its fares, there's never enough money to get their budget out of its hole. Why not rent out portions of subway cars as "pop-up" stores. Think about it. Probably 90% of the train riding population shops at Duane Reade. Who wouldn't jump at the chance to pick up a container of hand sanitizer on a crowded east side local?



copyright, brands, infringement, marketing, branding, advertising, sponsorship

Copyright Infringement or Marketing Coup?

"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." Is there any woman whose mother has not offered some version of this advice, generally preceded by "Remember!" and followed by, "Don't say I didn't warn you." Inevitably, this advice was ignored on a universal scale. Much was given away for free with, arguably, no impact on livestock sales, or marriage, depending on your tolerance for euphemism.

This phrase popped into my head while reading about Viacom's $1 billion copyright infringement suit against Google's YouTube. The company claims that YouTube is liable for damages for allowing unauthorized viewing of their programming. Does Viacom really believe that the user-published 2-5 minute clips of Jon Stewart's Daily Show, or MTV award show performances are stealing network viewership?

A recent 5-minute clip of a Daily Show segment posted one week ago has been viewed nearly 25,000 times and got 48 viewer comments. That's 25,000 people who have been exposed to a brief clip of the humorous content of the show. They can watch it on demand, replay it, develop an interest in the show, and pass it on to friends. What's more, the video post aggregated the YouTube identities of 48 people who felt strongly enough about it to post their thoughts, giving Viacom the opportunity to communicate directly with them. Isn't that kind of brand interaction a marketer's dream?

I think someone is giving Viacom bad advice. They can spend a lot of time and money trying to litigate complete control over viewer access to their content, a challenge they will never succeed at, or they can recognize this as an opportunities and leverage the inevitable. Engage and legitimize these defacto brand evangelists. Provide them with high quality show clips and encourage show fans to post them everywhere. Exploit the strength of viewer recommendation implicit in these posts. Or, to rewrite mom's advice, "Let them taste the milk. They'll come find the cow for more."


copyright, brands, infringement, marketing, brand evangelist, content, YouTube, Viacom

Not Completely Random Thoughts

My intention of posting at least once a week has been defeated by an overload of just about everything - work, family crises, and a backup of information. But, that doesn't mean that I haven't been churning out thoughts. I just haven't found time to funnel them from my head to the computer. So, in these few stolen moments, when I should be loading the car for the trip to the innards of New Jersey to celebrate the woman who brought me into the world, I'll start the download.

Random Thought #1: Not-For-Profit Doesn't Mean Not For Business
Over the past year I've taken on several non-profits as clients. This wasn't by design, it just happened imperceptibly until one day I discovered my one NPO client had become three, and then four. They're all wonderful organizations doing great things for the arts, for education, and generally making the world a better place. But (of course there's a "but"), I've found that in certain respects, they're run more like non-profit hobbies than businesses. Let's be honest, a non-profit is a business. It has output - a product or service - and it needs to generate income in order to operate and deliver its product or service. Sounds like a duck to me. Success may not be measured by shareholder value, but NPOs still need to engage in proven business practices in order to be successful. To think otherwise is foolish. In fact, to help change the perception that "business" isn't part of not for profit operations, I propose a name change: Non-Profit Business.

When you start looking at non-profits as businesses, there are certain business marketing realities that become clear:

- Non-Profits are Brands. That's right, just like Coke, Microsoft, and Toyota. Non-profit businesses (NPB), like all businesses have an identity that fosters perception, emotional connection, and loyalty. This identity must be honed, based on organization objectives and mission, and it must be continually tended to ensure that all communications, events, and interactions are consistent with the brand.

- All Communications are Marketing Communication. Based on the number of horrifyingly bad annual donation solicitations I've gotten, my assumption is that this idea isn't wide spread. Just because non profits are mostly in the business of doing good things doesn't mean there isn't competition. Every other NPB is competing for donor dollars which, in today's economy, are becoming less and less. Non-profits need to be developing visual identities and marketing campaigns that cut through the clutter and will be seen and heard in a creative way with a meaningful and compelling message.

- An Annual Marketing Plan is Your Tool to Achieving Annual Business Objectives. Assuming an NPB has clearly defined yearly business goals (i.e., fund raising, raising brand profile & creating awareness, events, donor acquisition, etc.), an organized marketing plan with a focused strategy, defined tactics, and success measurement tools is the most effective and efficient way to realize goals.

- Multichannel and Online Marketing Isn't Optional, It's Critical. Ask any foot dragging, geek-bashing, technology-phobic business how their strategy of resisting change is working out for them. These days most people use multiple communication channels and have schedules that are more time crunched, resulting in attention spans that are much shorter. Getting noticed, communicating your message, and persuading people to take action requires an interactive online strategy as well as off line communications and events. Using social media to communicate as well as to foster a virtual community of interested and connected supporters is one of the most powerful initiatives non-profits can undertake. Check out Beth Kanter's very illuminating posts on this.

Next up in the Random Thoughts hit parade: "Mini-Socials - Social Networking Writ Small".


Beth Kanter, brands, business, marketing, marketing communications, marketing plan, non-profit, not for profit, NPO, online marketing, social media, social networking

The Ad Men Get Bitch Slapped, The Cable Guy Tweets

In today's NY Times, Stuart Elliot reports that the attendees of this year's American Association of Advertising Agencies (Four A's) leadership conference found a very different event from previous years. Instead of the usual agenda of drinks/golf/and self-congratulatory bullshit, the attendees were dished a series of verbal whuppings followed by workshops on digital media. If this sounds like agency-abuse, it was actually self-inflicted. The conferences of the past several years were so thin on content and relevant information that, Elliott reports, some wanted to do away with it altogether. So this year, the format was changed.

Tom Carroll, TBWA Worldwide president and ceo, laid it on the line:

Mr. Carroll acknowledged that it would be hard work to “change the way we do our business,” but called it a necessary response to the profound shifts in media, consumer behavior and technology that are remaking the advertising landscape.

“All industries recalibrate themselves,” Mr. Carroll said, illustrating his point with a rhetorical question, “How’d you like to be in the CD business?”

My hero, Lee Clow, showed even less mercy and here's where the bitch slapping started in earnest:

“Stop whining,” Mr. Clow told the estimated 380 attendees. The new realities “shouldn’t be scary,” he said, because they offer “a huge opportunity for us” to become far more useful to marketer clients as they seek more effective ways to sell products.

“If you want to participate, you’ve got to start hiring young people,” Mr. Clow said, “and don’t tell them what to do — ask them what to do.”

Apparently, the crowd received their flogging enthusiastically and flocked to the digital media demonstrations. All of this warms my heart to read, but it makes me wonder, if agencies were so hot to find out about transforming their business and really integrating digital media in meaningful way, what in god's name have they been waiting for???

Today's Social Media Insider Blog by Catharine Taylor, reports about the opposite end of the spectrum - a company that doesn't need to be bitch slapped in order to wake up and smell the coffee. Comcast has appointed a customer service rep, Frank Eliason, to be their Twitterer, under the name Comcastcares. Taylor writes:

The fact that Eliason’s job even exists illustrates the serendipity required for most companies to get with the social networking program today. His emergence on Twitter is the result of his own long-held interest in tracking customer sentiment — along with a nudge from a Comcast executive a few months ago to check out what people were saying about the company on the micro-blogging service. Eliason just observed Twitter at first before tentatively wading in. But earlier this month, his dalliance with Twitter burst into the blogosphere, when he noticed a tweet from Michael Arrington, who runs the highly influential blog TechCrunch. Arrington was complaining that his Comcast Internet service was inexplicably down. Eliason reached out to help, and Comcast soon dispatched a team to Arrington’s house to fix his Internet connection. It was, Eliason says, a turning point, but not in quite the way you’d think. Sure, Arrington’s experience with Eliason turned into a lengthy post on TechCrunch, but what seems to have interested Eliason more is how his Twitter followers rallied around him when some said that Comcast had only helped Arrington because he was Arrington. No, his supporters said, he’d helped out many other people too. Comcastcares was forming relationships.

So does this mean Comcast has succeeded, where agencies have failed, in molding themselves to operate and succeed in a digital interactive world? I'll bet anyone who's called their customer service lately would vote no. But, as Michael Arrington blogged about his experience:

But wow, they’re doing at least one thing right. Well before most people, they have identified blogs, and particularly Twitter, as an excellent early warning system to flag possible brand implosions.

Maybe next year the 4 A's should be held in Philadelphia.


advertising, 4 A's,consumer behavior, customer service,interactive

Creating The Met 2.0

Last week's premier performance of Donizetti's La Fille du Regiment at the Metropolitan Opera proved that rock stars can be found in every genre of music, even opera.

Juan Diego Florez, a young, sexy, and devastatingly handsome Peruvian tenor, rocked the house and brought the audience to its feet with his brilliant delivery of an aria that has nine high C's. (For those of you who aren't opera fans, this is the basketball equivalent of Michael Jordan shooting his six 3-point field goals in first half of the first game of the 1992 Finals.) And he did it twice. That's right, when he finished the aria and the audience rose, applauding and screaming, Juan Diego did what very few artists have ever done in performance at the Met. He sang an encore. This show-stopping repeat, antithetical to the historically staid character of opera, was the idea of the Met's other rock star, its General Manager, Peter Gelb. Slight, balding, and bespectacled, Mr. Gelb appears more CPA than R&R. But anyone who wants to see a brilliant case study in brand rejuvenation, pay attention. This man can also rock the house.

It's been nearly two years since Gelb stepped into the GM role at the Met, where, from day one, he knew he was taking on some formidable challenges, namely declining ticket sales and membership, and a rapidly aging audience. But Gelb came prepared with a plan to rebrand not just the Met, but the entire opera category. He would make it modern, relevant, and accessible to younger, sophisticated, art-going audiences. He would turn the Met into a content distributor, opening up new channels of delivery. He would roll out a brash and daring brand makeover that would transformed a fusty, aging institution into a hip, technology savvy, arts marketing organization. He would create the Met 2.0.

Many people thought Gelb's plan was too audacious and risky. Clearly, those folk had never read Peter Drucker whose writing may as well have been the blueprint for it: "Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two, and only these two, basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs."

The marketing and innovation strategies that Gelb instituted were all designed to position the Met as a modern and hip component of the New York cultural scene, and to create a broader awareness of the entertainment value of the Met's operas among people outside of the metropolitan area. To do this, the Met focused on three main initiatives:

1. Rock the Brand.
Pre-Gelb, the Met's brand imagery was an iconography of opera house cliches: chandeliers, silhouetted 70's-era patrons, and a logo that evoked a proscenium arch were used on brochures, the Met's limited advertising, and communications. Gelb wanted to communicate a new Met brand - an organization that wasn't simply an opera venue, but one that was bringing its audiences innovative interpretations of classic operas envisioned by name film and theater directors, as well as new, avant-garde works by modern composers.

Thomas Michel, who had been the head of marketing for the Public Theater, was brought in as the Director of Marketing. Michel turned to Pentagram, a design firm he'd worked with at the Public. The results were a very simple and contemporary serifed-font logo that emphasizes the words "Met" and "Opera", and powerful, stylized photography that conveys the passion and drama of opera with a very modern and hip sensibility.


2. Advertise.
If this seems like a ridiculously obvious solution, up until 2006 it hadn't been so obvious to the Met. Advertising was anathema to the organization and the one other ad campaign they ran in their entire history wasn't meant to appeal to anyone who wasn't already an opera fan. The campaign that was launched in 2006 had a different target in mind - non-opera goers. To reach them, the campaign was spread throughout the city transit system with ads at subway entrances, station platforms, on the sides and backs of MTA buses, at bus shelters and on telephone kiosks.

3. Find New Channels and Distribute.
Bringing an audience to the opera is important, but Gelb understood that it was equally important to bring opera to an audience. If the Met was going to expand awareness and create new opera lovers it needed to find new distribution channels that could communicate the drama and excitement of a live opera.

In December 2006 they launched the Metropolitan Opera: Live in HD series that brought digital HD transmissions of six live operas to 100 specially equipped movie theaters around the world. The program has been wildly successful. In many theaters live performances sold out and encore showings were added. The 07/08 season expanded from six to eight opera transmissions and the number of participating venues worldwide increased to 600 and the 08/09 season has plans to feature eleven transmission in up t 800 theaters. By the end of this year the Met will have reached an audience of close to 900,000.

Other initiatives and channels include a subscription-based Metropolitan Opera station on SIRIUS Satellite Radio, selected open dress rehearsals, simulcasting opening night to the Jumbotron in Times Square, and streaming live operas to the Internet.

It may be a bit too early to evaluate the success of this program. While the HD transmissions are successful beyond anyone's anticipation, they're not yet making money, although are on track to do so. Met ticket sales are up more than 10% from a year ago and, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, revenue will probably be up by $10 million. Whether the momentum can be sustained and profits made remains to be seen. But what's certain is that not doing any of this would have doomed the Met to a slow and sad demise.

As a marketer I send Mr. Gelb a big Bravo. As an opera lover, I say, "Encore".


advertising, brand makeover,branding, innovation,marketing, Metropolitan Opera, Peter Gelb