Interruption vs Engagement

The traditional advertising model has received a heap criticism in light of more contemporary approaches to communication. Labeled as “intrusive” and “interruption”, traditional marketing media channels and tactics have been basterdized by those who champion marketing’s ongoing buzz word: “engagement”. The following article comes to the defense of traditional marketing tactics and sheds some light on our assumptions about contemporary marketing strategies.

I know we're not supposed to say it out loud, but a lot of CMOs and agency types think that advertising is going the way of the dinosaur, the Model T and conversation without emoticons. Consumers want to engage with content instead of get interrupted by ads, or so the logic goes, so we celebrate social campaigns like the recent one from Old Spice, and find favor only for commercials that are entertaining. Making a sales pitch just isn't credible anymore.

Now that we're well into the social-media revolution, I think it's time to revisit the three assumptions on which this argument is based:

The first assumption is that ads aren't credible so they can't play a meaningful role in our conversations with consumers. But nobody wakes up in the morning hating ads, do they? That's like saying a particular print font angers you, or that the hardcover book format keeps you up at night. I say ads aren't credible when they're useless or dishonest, which, unfortunately, describes most advertising. It took consumers a generation to figure out that we marketers are expert at slicing and dicing the truth. Oil companies claim to care about the environment by hyping inconsequential investments in alternative energy. Pictures of stuffed fast-food sandwiches have the real innards artificially pushed up to the front. Opposing political candidates are in league with the devil. Worse, we've been creating utter nonsense as product benefits since the 1960s. 7Up will make you hip like a Peter Max poster. Use Hai Karate cologne and pretty girls will jump you. It's cool to use a Microsoft PC.

Telling a half truth or a made-up benefit isn't the same thing as outright lying, but it's certainly not credible and consumers know it. Yet we continue to do it. I wonder sometimes if we're too willing to throw out the medium with the message, or at least defeat ourselves with misguided excuses for why we do what we do.

This relates to the second assumption, which is that consumers don't want to be bothered. Commercial speech is an intrusion, so brands must avoid producing anything that even hints at a sales purpose, and then wait and hope to be invited to do so at some later date. "Permission marketing" is a glorious babblespeak idea that easily embraces the egg without acknowledging the hard work of a chicken, and writ large shows that we've forgotten there are good reasons why consumers want to know things they may not have asked for:

Relevance. When people find themselves with available time and nothing available to do, they're open to receiving a pitch. Waiting in line. Sitting on a jet looking for its gate. TV channel-surfing. Creatively making those situations better lets you risk selling just about anything.

Immediacy. Messages like "move; there's a piano about to fall on your head" are acceptable to anyone, anytime. Give them obvious utility that addresses a need, not just a benefit, and it allows you to sell and them to say yes or no. "There's a sale at the store in front of you" on a mobile phone counts in this regard.

Meaning. Most people can't remember how to tell a joke, but something that is meaningful is hard to forget. So proactively offering information that really matters to consumers is doable, irrespective of most times and places, and they're more likely to use that information to buy something later on.

The third assumption is that entertainment is an alternative to selling. It's not, and it never was; it's like thinking all you need for a great book is a lot of words and punctuation, or that a smiling face in a photo constitutes a happy moment in time. Purpose matters, as does how you accomplish something, and it's this 800-pund gorilla that's a part of every conversation we have with consumers. They know we're trying to sell to them, whether we acknowledge it or they consciously think about it. Is it possible that consumers suspect our motives when we produce "content" without any admission of sales intent? Could the all-time lows in corporate reputation and credibility be partially a result of these purposeless conversations? We can entertain all we want, but perhaps we're just swapping empty social calories for the substance we once aspired to deliver via advertising.

Brands always had conversations with consumers, whether via broadcast TV or chiseled on clay tablets. The rules have also been consistent over time: Tell the truth and tell it with relevance, immediacy and meaning. That's why ads that interrupted with sales messages worked so effectively for so long; making the content worth consumers' time meant that brands could risk asking for the sale. It's not a new idea, and today's consumers aren't a new breed of human being. Yet we've assumed that the old rules no longer apply. Delivering engagement and its metrics of time spent and forwards clicked trumps the historic measures of interruption, all of which got to a sales result pretty quickly.

I'd choose effective interruption over pointless engagement anytime. Why wouldn't you?

Source - Advertising Age

Online Behaviour: Lobster Traps & Panda Forests

The following article examines why Google has had such a hard time breaking into the social media realm of the Internet. Although the article itself speaks to competing corporate online goliaths, it provides some insight into consumer behaviour online and suggests some best practices to keep people coming back. R.I.P Wave 2009 – 2010.

After researching what pandas do all day, I was struck by how panda-like we are when we use the Internet.

Roaming a massive world wide web of forests, most of our time is spent searching for delicious bamboo and consuming it. 40 times a day we'll poop something out — an email, a text message, a status update, maybe even a blog post — and then go back to searching-and-consuming.

For a decade, Google has trained us to optimize our pandic selves:

The kind of application that Google knows how to make well are the kind that embody a panda's "eats, shoots, and leaves" model of Internet behavior. Pandas spend every waking hour foraging — aka searching — and consuming. The most successful Google applications serve such a utilitarian mandate, too: they encourage users to search for something, consume, and move onto the next thing. Get in, do your business, get out. Do a Google search, slurp down information, move on. Pull up Google maps or Gmail or Google news, do something, leave. Where Google does not excel is in making applications that are by their nature for lingering and luxuriating — the so-called social applications.

What's the main difference between successful Google applications (search, maps, news, email) and a successful social applications? With Google applications we return to the app to do something specific and then go on to something else, whereas great social applications are designed to lure us back and make us never want to leave.

Consider this example: Google Answers focused on answers and failed; Yahoo! Answers focused on social and succeeded. The primary purpose of a social application is connecting with others, seeing what they're up to, and maybe even having some small, fun interactions that though not utilitarian are entertaining and help us connect with our own humanity. Google apps are for working and getting things done; social apps are for interacting and having fun.

Put another way, Google designing social apps is like Microsoft designing iPod packaging.

Now, consider the Four Horsemen of Hotness in 2010: Facebook, Quora, Foursquare, and Twitter. Think deeply about why none of these four could have been developed inside Google.

Facebook is a lobster trap and your friends are the bait. On social networks we are all lobsters, and lobsters just wanna have fun. Every time a friend shares a status, a link, a like, a comment, or a photo, Facebook has more bait to lure me back. Facebook is literally filled with master baiters: Whenever I return to Facebook I am barraged with information about many friends, to encourage me to stick around and click around. Every time I react with a like or comment, or put a piece of content in, I'm serving as Facebook bait myself. Facebook keeps our friends as hostages, so although we can check out of Hotel Facebook any time we like, we cannever leave. So we linger. And we lurk. And we luxuriate. The illogical extreme of content-as-bait are the Facebook games where the content is virtual bullshit. Social apps are lobster traps; Google apps do not bait users with their friends.

Quora is restaurant that serves huge quantities of bacn and toast. Quora is a dozen people running dozens of experiments in how to optimally use bacn to get people to return to Quora, and how to use toast to keep them there. Bacn is email you want but not right now, and Quora has 40 flavors of it that you can order. Quora's main use of Bacn is to sizzle with something delicious (a new answer to a question you follow, a new Facebook friend has been caught in the Quora lobster trap, etc.) to entice you to come back to Quora. Then, once you're there, the toast starts popping. Quora shifts the content to things you care about and hides things you don't care about in real-time, and subtly pops up notifications while you're playing, to entice you to keep sticking around and clicking around. Some toast is so subtle it doesn't even look like a pop-up notification — it just looks like a link embedded in the page with some breadcrumbs that appear in real-time to take you to some place on Quora it knows you'll find irresistible. For every user's action, bacn's and toast's fly out to others in search of reactions. (Aside: if I were Twitter, I would be worried. Real-time user interfaces are more addictive than pseudo-real-time interfaces; what if Quora took all of its technology and decided to use it to build a better Twitter?). Social apps are action-reaction interaction loops; Google apps are designed just for action.

Foursquare exists in a dozen dimensions. That statement is ridiculous on its surface; after all, even String Theory has only 11 dimensions. (Technically, it's 10 dimensions, because they start numbering at zero.) Whatever higher-than-the-highest reality Foursquare thinks it's building, one thing is clear: this company is more about chemistry than physics. Foursquare has studied the works of David A. Kessler, who studied hyper-palatable foods that had various combinations of salts, fats, and sugars that stimulate the diner's brain to crave more, rather than satisfy their hunger. The more a person uses Foursquare, the more a person wants to use Foursquare: the points are salts, the badges are fats, and sweet sweet mayorships are sugars that we fight over like we're Sneetches. Ok, so Foursquare's leadership thinks they're only 10% of the way there — I guess they have 11 other combinations of salts, fats, and sugars to perfect so that all we do all day, every day, is check into Foursquare. Social apps offer a steady diet of junk food to keep us addicted; Google apps offer mostly bamboo.

Twitter is a giant blue ball machine. Even the New York Times says not enough people understand what the heck Twitter is, for them to be willing to use the word tweet in polite company. But that doesn't stop lots of people from using Twitter. Perhaps they are enamored by a word that sounds ornithological in nature. I tried to explain it to my brother like this: tweets are little blue balls, and they get bounced around by a giant machine so others can enjoy them. Those people can react by copying the balls (retweets), swinging at the balls (at-replies), or beaning the originator in the head (direct messages). There are also lots of whales on Twitter—celebrity whales to attract us, and fail whales to repel us. As opposed to Facebook, which hates whales because whales distract the lobsters from the traps. At this point, my brother gives me a blank stare and says he's going back to Facebook. Which goes to show that a social app doesn't need lobster traps, bacn and toast, or 12 dimensions to be successful; it just needs balls. Social apps are whimsical and fun; Google apps are whittled and functional.

So why can't Google build social apps? Because Google's core values ("be useful", "do good by users") reject the very notion of lobster traps, bacn and toast, a dozen dimensions of junk food, and giant blue ball machines. Understanding those concepts is not easy. It takes lots of practice, and lots of patience, and lots of learning.

2010's leadership of Facebook, Foursquare, and Twitter struggled for YEARS learning from FriendFeed, Dodgeball, and Odeo, respectively. The main mythical man month mega mantra—"build one to throw away"—isn't just a clever way to gracefully fail on the first iteration; it's the way we learn. I believe those collective experiences have given them the humility to know that most things don't work; the confidence to know that simplicity is more important than features; and the stamina to see their visions through the good, the bad, and the ugly that accompany startups.

Does Google have the patience to launch social apps that aren't widely used so they can learn from them? Not Lively.

Does Google have the ability to launch social apps that aren't utilitarian? Repeat after me: "A Buzz is a high-frequency Wave." And neither pandas nor lobsters know what those are, other than wacky experiments gone awry.

Has Google's culture-of-facts ever learned from Orkut? Good question for thetriumvirate. A humbler panda than me once tweeted:

So, to summarize: Google is responsible for Orkut, Wave, and Buzz. Ex-Googlers are responsible for Facebook, Foursquare, and Twitter. Discuss.

Ok, I'll discuss. I have three main points:

1. Google cannot hire a Head of Social because no individual can change Google's DNA of building applications for pandas, not lobsters. Googlers who wanted to develop great social applications had to leave Google to do so.
2. Google cannot buy Twitter or LinkedIn or Quora (or all three!) because Google's culture has no respect for successful social applications. YouTube's office is still far from the Google campus to avoid the toxic attitude described by a former Orkut employee, "[Google has] an environment that viewed social networking as a frivolous form of entertainment rather than a real utility, and I'm pretty sure this viewpoint was shared all the way up the chain of command to the founders."
3. Google cannot focus group its way to successful social applications. Henry Ford opined, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

And three reasons why Google should be concerned:

1. Facebook serves 3 billion LIKE buttons a day, serves one-sixth of all U.S. ads, hasmore traffic than Google or the next 99 sites combined, has 100 million mobile users and five times as many web users, and when it launches a Facebook search engine, it will be the second biggest search engine in the world right out of the gate.
2. Twitter's search engine is bigger than Bing and Yahoo combined. Not only is Twitter doing 800 million searches a day, but apparently they're the fastest growing search engine in the U.S.
3. Bing actually seems to have a better relationship with Facebook and Twitter, and in addition, Bing has gone out of its way to partner with Amazon as well as Appleand its soon-to-be-100-million iPhone OS devices.

So... Now would be a good time for a bold move from Google. YouTube is the only social application Google has ever bought that was and remains #1 in its category. What can we learn from that?

1. Google FAILED going head-to-head against YouTube. Buying YouTube in retrospect was a great idea, and keeping YouTube separate from Google HQ was a great idea.
2. Google FAILED in acquiring and integrating other social products. Blogger, Picasa, JotSpot, Dodgeball, Jaiku. None are their category leaders now. Some are dead. Why?
3. Google FAILED to create Google Contacts that are easy to edit and integrated with Facebook and Twitter. Why then should we believe Google can do something simple, entertaining, and interesting with Google Profiles?

Google is filled with adrenaline now that Facebook and Twitter are juggernauts in social advertising and searching. Google is ready to fight, but social applications are about loving not fighting. Google is from Mars, and social applications are from Venus. Anyone know someone who can build a rocket ship so Google can ride to the world of social applications?

My advice for Google's Trinity is to put on your thinking caps about social apps. Think really carefully about what you need, and why. Look to the glorious words of jwz:

"Social software" is about making it easy for people to do other things that make them happy: meeting, communicating, and hooking up.

And for all us lobsters, I just have one thing to say: "Yeah, you're all gonna be okay."

Source - Gizmodo

Why Your Ideas Suck

Advertising isn’t a creative industry, it’s a commitment industry. What separates those who sit in the corner office and those who just sit on the corner is their willingness to see an idea through. The following explains the non-creative components which go into success in the creative industries – and why your buddy may actually have had “the best idea ever” at the bar last night.

I hear it all the time. In fact, I’ve even done it myself and just recently a good friend of mine said it to me over a beer: “man, I had this great idea the other day but I didn’t write it down.” Sounds like a pretty shitty idea to me…

Sorry, KF but you know I’ve done it too. What about this one: “Oh man, we had the best idea but the client wouldn’t go for it”. Sounds like a pretty shitty idea too.

Here’s the thing: coming up with an idea is a very small part of what we need to do to create great work. I look at this way - you should spend about 20% of your time coming up with an idea and the other 80% making it happen. We all know, if you don’t make it happen it doesn’t exist. It’s that simple. That’s how great ideas get shitty. I was thinking about this this morning on a flight and quickly wrote out the steps I believe are taken in order for something great to take shape. It looks something like this:

The first thing I realized was that I may have left something out: luck. Or timing, or as some would say: the alignment of planets. Yeah, I think that should be in there somewhere, but that’s the one thing we’re not in control of. Everything else on the list we are.

At the very top of the list, you’ll see that I’m not sure if the need for an idea always comes before the idea. Actually I’m pretty sure that’s not always the case, so let’s keep that part loose. We know at some point there is a need for an idea or an idea presents itself and we find a need. Either way, that’s when the real work begins. And this is the place where I think most juniors struggle…

You have to sell it. And I’m pretty sure at this point I can say, this is often the hardest part. Sell the damn idea! Sell the shit out of it and spend a good amount of time preparing to do so. There are all kinds of tactics and techniques used to do this and in many ways, that’s what makes some agencies and agency folks better than others: their ability to sell the work. And if that’s not the hardest part, then keeping it sold is.

Between focus groups, internal politics, someone’s fear of the colour blue or what their spouse will think, this is always a challenge. You need to try as much as possible to keep the idea in tact. Yes, you need to be open to evolving it and making it better, but always try to stop it from getting worse.

Craft. I remember judging an awards show one time when I was faced with the best example of why craft is important. Two ads were on the table. Both were for a shopping centre. Both were for shopping there at Christmas. Both were the same idea. One was well crafted, the other not so much. Can you guess which one won an award? Me neither….

You have to deliver. If you can’t execute what you promised - forget it. Game over. And finally you have to flexible enough to monitor whether your idea is working and be ready to refine it and get it back out there. Gone are the days, of sending an idea out there and hoping for the best.

So, after all this, I’ve tried to make one point clear: the idea is not the only thing that matters, and isn’t always what makes brilliant agencies or agency employees. Now that I think about it, there really is only one thing that does: commitment.

Advertising or not - you really need to be committed to make great things happen. If you think about it, it really doesn’t matter what it is - your work, your relationships, your therapist - commitment. So, are you committed?

Source - I Have An Idea

10 Biggest Tagline Mistakes

Creativity should never fit a mold. Despite this, we are seeing more and more taglines conforming to what is safe and easy – two words that should be stricken from any advertiser’s vocabulary. The following article delves into what separates poignant and flat taglines. Have a look…just do it.

The art of tagline development is to distill the meaning of a big idea into a cogent message that’s easy to say, easy to understand, and easy to remember.

To ensure your brand expression is impossible to forget, use the following checklist to avoid the most common mistakes that plague aspiring taglines.

1. Speaking in Cliché

There’s a tendency to use words that have recognized meaning in today’s workplace. However, that doesn’t make them meaningful. Many can be described as trendy jargon and doublespeak. Take “innovation” and “solution.” Instead of telling people you’re innovative and deliver solutions, show them how you’ll make their lives better and their jobs easier. Rocking their world is what being a solution-oriented innovator is all about. One word you should avoid is “unique,” or you’ll end up being unique just like everyone else. Find a way to express your difference so that it “makes a difference” – clearly demonstrating why your customers need you now.

2. Being Bland

News Flash: Bland is boring. It may not offend but it doesn't excite or inspire either. If your tagline appears safely and predictably generic, your brand is going to be perceived that way, too. To freshen up your expression, try using uncommon words, speaking in the vernacular, inverting words, altering the tone or rhythm, or even breaking the rules of grammar. Whenever possible, try to rise above the pedestrian and couch your ideas in language that is stylistically fun, surprising, and inventive. Keep this one thought in mind: Think brand, not bland.

3. Being Too Literal

Great taglines often express ideas with multiple, metaphorical, or unexpected meanings. If an expression has a single, obvious meaning which is taken literally and at face value, it’s one-dimensional at best. Even though you want to make sure your message is loud and clear, try broadening the meaning of your tagline by relying on words and ideas that connote, not merely denote; imply, not simply state. In other words, embellish. Go against the grain. Reveal the artifice. It’s not surprising that taglines that make use of hyperbole, irony, and double meaning garner open-ended interpretations and enjoy more widespread appeal.

4. Imitating Other Taglines

We’ve seen it all before…and that’s the crux of the problem: Me-too, cookie-cutter slogans. Why? Because being original and breaking new ground are scary propositions. Remember, the whole goal of a tagline is to illustrate what’s novel about your organization – and that includes the way your tagline looks, sounds, and feels. Borrowing the familiar trappings of another tagline may be tempting, but it’s not going to set you apart from the pack. Like a good wardrobe, your tagline should be well-crafted, look sharp, and fit perfectly. More importantly, it should be custom tailored to your organization.

5. Not Being True to Your Brand

Tagline ownership means laying claim to an expression that reflects your brand attributes and communicates your brand value. So be sure to select one that is truly representative of your brand. Otherwise, you’ll experience brand disconnect and find yourself saddled with an unsupportable message and an unbelievable promise. The solution: Know your brand and what it stands for. Familiarize yourself with its strengths and weaknesses…and special uniquenesses. Be true to your brand!

6. It’s All About “YOU”

If your tagline appears self-centered and self-serving, it probably is. Sure, we know your organization is smart, savvy, and successful -- and that you’re the best, biggest, and brightest resource around. But what promise do you fulfill for your customers? What values do you share? How do you float their boat? Put your customers squarely in the equation by turning your tagline inside out. Shift its focus so it reflects their needs, their point of view, and their brand experience. If your tagline has too much “YOU,” then put more “THEM” in it. After all, they’re the ones keeping you in business.

7. Sounding Too Somber

Not all taglines are funny. Nor do they have to be. However, I believe that taglines shouldn’t take themselves so seriously. They’re not engraved in stone and, anyway, nobody reads tablets these days. If your tagline comes across as a bit overblown or pretentious, lighten it up! Give it some attitude and plant tongue firmly in cheek. Just make sure it reflects your brand’s tone and personality. Enduring taglines often have a humorous edge and an ability to reveal a disarming universal truth to which everyone can relate. Discover the universal truth in your brand. Smiles and grins will surely follow.

8. Loose Verbiage

Taglines should express your brand message simply and succinctly. That doesn’t mean a tagline has to be, say, four words or less. Some of the best taglines I’ve seen contain five…even six words. The point is: Crispy thoughts lead to punchy messages. Try not to use any more words than necessary. If you can achieve the same or better effect with one word less, lose the excess baggage. If a particular word is long, awkward, or complicated, replace it with another. Also, if your tagline needs one word more to achieve balance or closure, don’t be afraid to add it. A well-turned phrase should be compact and elegant, and make its point without any fluff.

9. Lack of Vetting

Okay, you’ve selected a fabulous tagline and can’t wait to reveal it to the world. Have you properly vetted it? Have you done a Google search to see whether your tagline is already being used commercially? Does it have an “SM” (service mark) or “TM” (trademark) after it? Is this expression found in the masthead of someone else’s web site? Have you checked to see whether it’s available as a domain name? And, most importantly, have you checked for potential trademark conflicts on the U.S. Patent & Trademark web site? In order to protect your brand investment, it’s absolutely essential to look for red flags before you plant yours in the ground.

10. Poor Visibility

Now that your tagline has been vetted and meets the standards of clarity, simplicity, originality, and believability, it’s time to put it to good use. It isn’t going to do you any good sitting on a shelf or stuck in a drawer. Use your tagline on your web site, business card, ads, brochures, and as part of your e-mail signature. Use it consistently with your logo. Incorporate it into your sales talks, team meetings, and public presentations. Be sure your employees and external stakeholders understand it and are on board with it. Distribute a guide that communicates the value of your tagline in the context of your brand messaging and positioning. Remember, your tagline is the beginning of the conversation – not the end of it.

Source - Tagline Guru

Marketing As A State Of Mind

What do meditation and marketing have in common? They both create a state of mind. Proper advertisements put the customer in state of complete and utter brand absorption. Read on to discover how this is accomplished.

Marketing is no longer a department – it is a state of mind.

I awoke with a start this morning with a single thought on my mind. It is a concept I heard randomly in the halls (or maybe on Twitter) from the company, ExactTarget. I’m not sure who said it (or typed it) but it was on my mind at 2:30am this morning. Stupid, I know. At first the concept sounds easy to understand. “Yah… Kyle this makes complete sense! Do not think of marketing as a department with a CMO and a staff but think of marketing as an overall experience!” Easy.

However, there is a deeper meaning to the idea of marketing being a “state of mind.” It is more than your department or advertisement. It is everything under your brand… your structure that supports and influences the customer’s buying decision…. and their experience.

First, let’s explore the meaning of something being a “state of mind.” In researching for this blog post I ran across the teachings of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (I know… it is a mouthful). Mihaly is pretty much the master on the idea of the flow of the mental state of mind.

Mihaly outlines his theory that people are most happy when they are in a state of flow— a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation. The idea of flow is identical to the feeling of being in the zone or in the groove.”

Each individual can have their own understanding of what it means to be in the zone (or groove). When it comes to marketing it is extremely important to keep the customer or the potential customer in the groove. The groove is the process of captivation… a state of concentrating and complete absorption in an activity. Your story is what makes you captivating. Your client’s success story is what throws people in the groove. Can you imagine a customer being completely absorbed in your product and brand experience? You can look at any big brand and discover slivers of this idea worked into the product design, store design, marketing and employee training.

Tell the story and captivate your audience. Want a good example? Check out this marketing/recruitment/employee interation video from Twitter.

You may be reading this disgusted because you are the ONLY marketing professional in your company. Hell… you could be the only person in your company! But guess what? It is easier than you think to create a positive state of mind with your clients and potential clients. Tell your story and create the content that pulls potential customers into your mix. You are creating an experience to captivate them.

Source - Kyle Lacy

Six Ways Brands Should Think of Social Media as a Party

Just because you’re at the party, doesn’t mean anyone wants to engage with you. At the social media party, as in life, attendance isn’t sufficient to garner popularity. The following explains the nuances of social media interaction which can transform your brand from wallflower to rock star.

I've been using this analogy for some time now and it seems to resonate with everyone who hears it. If you are a brand looking to connect with consumers through Social Media, think of Social Media as one giant party. Here's why:

1) Social Media is one giant party.

Let's set the stage.

Imagine the social web as one huge cocktail party. In one corner of the room, a group of moms are talking about education and parenting issues. In another corner of the room, a group of recent college grads laugh over Will Ferrell's latest movie. Everywhere you turn, different groups of people are enjoying themselves, sharing stories, discussing current events, pop culture, trends, etc. All the groups are mingling, making new "friends," and the most influential people in the room have the most "followers" hanging on their every word.

Sound familiar?

Social Media is a true reflection of society today--and what better representation of social behavior, fragmentation, hierarchy and influence than a giant party?

2) Lead with "people stories," not "product stories."

Marketing has taught us to always lead with our "product story": distilling our message down to a "unique selling proposition" and driving it home with features and benefits. As a brand marketer, your first priority has always been to show or sell your product. And it works well--if you only have 30 seconds to sell your product through a message that's blasted out into the world. However, if you walk into that party and the first thing you do is try to sell your product, nobody will talk to you and you certainly won't get invited back.

You walk into the party and head for the group of moms in the corner. If you interrupt their conversation to talk about your "new and improved hydrating face cream" or your "ultra-absorbent paper towels," chances are you will alienate the group or simply be laughed out of the room.

To become the life of the party you can't lead with product stories; you need to lead with people stories. If you want that group of moms or those recent grads to listen to you, you need to enter the conversation on their terms. You have to start a dialogue with something that is important to them, not what's important to you. Only then will you have earned the right to talk about yourself. People need to like you first, then they'll ask what you do for a living.

This means it's critical to have the right "opening line"--a way to enter the conversation that starts with the consumer's agenda but can seamlessly migrate to your agenda.

3) Use content to make connections.

The right story, joke or anecdote at a party goes a long way, and social media is no different. If those moms are talking about parenting issues, turn them onto a parenting expert who can help with their problems. If those grads are laughing over Will Ferrell's latest movie, give them something similar to laugh about or recommend another movie for them to see.

The right content will allow you to make instant connections. And that means you need to think of your fellow party goers as audiences rather than consumers. Like a publisher, you need to help or entertain first; showing or selling comes later.

4) Embrace fragmentation.

Just like a party, social media is made up of many groups. People with different interests, different likes and different dislikes. This means that you can't use the same opening line with moms that you used with those college grads.

Every audience is unique and you should speak directly to each group. This means you may need a few different "opening lines" if you are going after different audiences. In the same way you would "work the room" at a party, the way to get scale in social media is to break your audience into segments. As you walk around having conversations with different groups of people, you naturally adjust your talking points based on who you are speaking with. At the end of the night you will have met everyone at the party; if you are interesting, relevant and sociable, people will remember you and be willing to learn more about you (and your products).

5) Leverage the influencer.

Have you ever walked into a party where you didn't know anyone? It's not impossible to meet people, but you certainly have to work hard at it.

Now, what if you walked into the party with the most popular kid in school? You get instant credibility, everyone in the room knows who you are and talking to them becomes that much easier.

Simply put, leveraging the right influencers makes you "cool by association." You don't have to work as hard meeting people, you get to talk about yourself more and instead of trying to figure how to start a conversation with people, they will come talk to you.

6) Engagement trumps impressions.

Brands are obsessed with impressions. For them, it's always been about reach and frequency. Well, when it comes to social media, the name of game is engagement, not impressions.

If you walked into a party and just stood against the back wall, people might "see" you standing there. You may even make eye-contact with a few of those moms you so desperately want to talk to--but what good will that do?

You could go to 1,000 parties and stand against the wall at each one of them. Eventually people may recognize you--but they won't know anything about you and there's still no basis for them to have a relationship with you.

The Social Media Party is not about making eye-contact (impressions); it's about shaking hands (engagements). It's about meeting people, talking to them, sharing with them--it's about engaging with them and participating in the conversation.

Final Thought

The party analogy is a whimsical way of saying that brands can't treat Social Media the same way they treat other mediums. For the first time in history, brands are trying to navigate a two-way channel of communication. This means they can't talk at consumers. Instead, they need to engage with audiences. Social media requires a value exchange between the consumer and the brand.

So when it comes to developing successful social media campaigns and programs:

1) Pretend like you're getting dressed up for a giant party.
2) Lead with people stories, not your product stories.
3) Use content to make connections.
4) Try to align yourself with the "in crowd" so people will want to talk to you.
5) Don't just make eye-content, shake hands with the people you want to meet.

Source - AdRants