web analytics

Digital Transformation Won’t Save You

Executives say that 52% of “digital transformation” projects aren’t thought through.

In a recent survey, companies cited loosing $28 million per year, on average, because of poorly planned “digital transformation” projects. You know how this happens? Because most executives can’t tell the difference between an IT strategist and a digital strategist.

Sorry to get on my soapbox here but I have to say something. I have seen SO many projects started by “strategists” that push technology without thinking through what audience they’re targeting, what that technology should do, or how it impacts the overall bottom line of the company.

Here’s what the difference and how you save companies money…

You start with the customer journey – the entire customer journey. I’m talking offline, online, and everything in between. Use data to track where customers go and surveys to understand how they make decisions. If you don’t have data, give it your best educated guess. You deal with them every day. They pay your salary. You know more about them than you know.

Map that out on a step-by-step journey to figure out where the audience’s pain points are.

For instance, is your audience not getting enough information? Are they struggling with too much information? How valuable is the information they are receiving? Where should you insert yourself, as the brand/product/solution/etc. and what medium makes sense?

Sometimes you’ll find digital isn’t the answer. Sometimes sales is the answer. Sometimes product labeling is the answer. The point is to not assume the answer is technology.

IT strategists, like many consultants, see themselves as hammers and the world as a bunch of nails. That’s great. Technology is great. However, remember that the phone is technology too. In fact, that piece of technology has been pushed to the point of abuse so many times that the federal government had to make a friggin’ block list!

You avoid abusing technology as a solution by not just looking at the transformation project as digital but as an audience transformation project! You get the smartest people from around the organization and you talk through the journey.

If digital makes sense, fabulous! If it doesn’t – figure out what you really need. The point is don’t be goaded into a project that seems to good to be true.  Vet the opportunity and the advice you get as an executive.

Remember – the best solutions are the ones that seem small in the beginning but make a huge difference in the experience of the customer.

Insights, Not Just Data

HBR recently published a remarkable statistic that says that between 2013 and 2017, marketing leaders have largely seen data analyst talent stagnate.

Why is that and how do we fix it?

One upon a time I worked with a wicked talented group of data analysts. Seriously, these are the kinds of professionals that could come up with algorithms to save the planet.

The only hitch is that they were siloed like you wouldn’t believe. They were laser-like focused on the data so they kept their process “clean” by not allowing other disciplines to add to or be involved in data analysis or delivery.  On hand hand, I can see their point. Often non-data professionals bring bias to the table.

What happened with this team, like anything in business though, is that their deliverables were very one-sided. In other words, when they worked alone they often struggled to solve actual business problems.  They would present data, not insights.

Like HBR presented in a recent article, you have to have multiple viewpoints in order to solve business problems – particularly when dealing with data. In fact, they cite a remarkable statistic that says that between 2013 and 2017 that marketing leaders have largely seen data analyst talent stagnate.

They go on to say…

Some marketing analysts excel at math and coding, and some excel at framing issues, developing explanations, and connecting to business implications. A far smaller set excel at both. Companies either need to wrap these variegated skills into one person through training and accumulating different types of experiences, or, more likely, assemble a team that is sufficiently facile with the techniques that they can interact productively, ensuring that there is some mechanism to match the approach (and the analyst) to the problem. This match requires senior talent, with the breadth of perspective to align analytical resources and business problems.

What I love about HBR is that they are very solutions-oriented. The remainder of the article they go into the solve for this problem including bringing in cross-functional talent to data teams to 1) help define the problem in the first place, 2) map data to business problems and 3) synthesize data into insights relevant to solving the problem.

That last point is the killer idea, in my opinion. Insights are very different than “data solutions.”  Insights bring together critical perspective, behavioral background of the subject matter, and – most importantly – what to do about it.

What I’m trying to do at Morrison is to build analyst talent into our strategy team so that it’s not about one perspective. Sure, the process is messy and it can sometimes cause lengthy discussions but that’s the point.

I wholeheartedly respect and encourage “clean” processes to be built into data analysis. I would never want to influence the outcome of data one way or another. However, to be useful we have to take that analysis, lay it out, and decide what to do with it.

That’s the true promise of data talent.

The Real Role Of AI In Content Generation

Today Reuters announced that it is introducing AI-based copywriters into its newsrooms.  It’s rationale is the following:

…Machines write bad stories and journalists struggle with mounds of data. So that’s why Reuters is building a “cybernetic newsroom” – marrying the best of machine capability and human judgment to drive better journalism, rather than asking one to be a second-rate version of the other.

It’s a smart play. Before anyone goes out and fires their copywriters though, you have to read a little more into the context of their AI’s use. Turns out that the program, named “Lynx Insight” will begin by writing short snippets of financial reporting data such as…

Johnson & Johnson has outperformed the S&P 500 Pharmaceuticals sector by 1.9 pct in the last month. In the same period it has fallen short of the broader S&P 500 by 3.8 pct.

Again, really smart. It’s taking tasks that are menial, repetitive, and simple and automating them. It’s piecing together data, forming sentences, and allowing human operators to evaluate and publish those statements as news.

What the AI cannot do is provide the “why.”

You see, Reuters is selecting financial services as its main area of activation not because it requires context but because it doesn’t. Financial reporting is supposed to be agnostic of opinions.  The same can be said of most sports reporting, the area that Lynx is going to be eventually rolled out to.

What I want to point out is that human copywriters are still needed to contextualize information. For instance, I would trust an AI like this to analyze digital performance data and create basic insights about how a program is performing vs. a historical baselines. What I wouldn’t do is ask the AI to explain why. Hell, I’ve seen way too many human analysts read out data and get it flat wrong.

You have to have a human that knows the qualitative landscape and provides interpretation of the data in order for real content generation.

If you need any proof of this, just take a look at some of the more epic AI content generation fails form brands like Burger King and BMW.

I guess my point is this – there are way too many overeager marketers out there that will only read the headline like this and extrapolate the idea that AI content generation is a great idea. What I’m saying is recognize the limitations of the technology, observe the nuance of the human-written content that works and go from there.

What’s Digital Got To Do With It?

Redefining “Digital” In The Omni-Channel Environment

If you ask me, we’re no longer living in a “digital” world. We’re now living in what can be best described as a post-digital reality.

In short, what I mean is that the perceptual line between offline and and online shopping isn’t just blurred – it statistically doesn’t even exist. Take the convergence of two trends – webrooming and showrooming. Webrooming is where consumers browse online and shop in-store, whereas showrooming is the opposite.

Research into customer buying behaviors indicates that webrooming and showrooming have now reached the point where they are now equal. Customers are just as likely to engage in one as they are another. Let that sink in. We don’t think about making purchases in one channel or another – we just think about making purchases.

This isn’t just a B2C thing, either. B2B commerce is increasingly neither tethered to a single channel for decisions nor purchase mechanism. This begs the question – what does “digital” mean in today’s marketing lexicon?

If online decisions are now being made offline and offline decisions are being made online – where does “digital” fit? The answer is that “digital” doesn’t matter anymore. At least not from a marketing perspective.

Too many marketers confuse marketing technology with actual marketing and call it “digital.” Don’t get me wrong – DMPs, AI, AR, and bots are all fabulous marketing tools. However, there are far too many applications of these technologies that really don’t do anything. They don’t enhance the customer experience, they don’t inform customer purchase decisions and they certainly don’t provide any added value. At best they’re novelties.

If you really want to make these technologies work, we have to look back to move forward. I’m talking back to the beginning of marketing “technology” – the door-to-door salesman. You see, the best door-to-door salespeople knew their territories and their customers so well that they could anticipate their needs. Customers didn’t even have to ask for something.  The salesperson showed up at their door at just the right time with the right pitch for that specific customer.

For technologists who want to be marketers, ask yourself this question, what if we had an army of those kind of salespeople? What if we had enough salespeople to match every customer one-to-one – millions of them? What if we could send them around the world in an instant with all the information they needed for just the right pitch.

That, my friends is digital in a post-digital reality.

Customers would never again have to walk into a store or open their Amazon app because our salesperson would be there with what they needed before they knew they needed it. That’s what digital can do for the customer relationship.

It’s not that technology and innovation don’t have a place at the table or that we don’t need experts at commanding that technology. We just can’t take our eyes off the fact that marketing still happens just one sale at a time. We can’t forget that people buy things from people – and always will.

Too many times as marketers we become so enamored of our own creations – of new technologies – that we forget what got us into this profession in the first place.

In the end, the future belongs to those who find a way to create great things in service to the customer. The future belongs to great marketers who harness data, and technology, and innovation not for the sake of accolades and press mentions – but to place valuable and interesting information in the hands of the right decision makers.

That’s the future. That’s commerce. That’s marketing.

Now, let’s get to work.

Chatbots: What You Need To Know To Succeed

Believe it or not, chatbots have been around for several decades. We just haven’t noticed. You could even say they went mainstream as early as 1966 when researchers at MIT created ELIZA, that cute little computer program that talked back to you.

Today, they are quite the rage. Oracle just debuted a new developer platform and the likes of Facebook Messenger and Apple’s iMessage have opened up their platforms to host them.  The questions are 1) should you build one and 2) how do you make it work.

The first question has an easy answer – if it adds value, do it! If it expedites consumer interactions, provides easier access to your company, or is even just for pure entertainment then the bot is probably worth the investment.

The second question – how do you make a chatbot successful – is a more complicated. To answer that question, I actually looked at several dozen chatbots and consumer reactions to them by visiting Chatbots.org. The site provides online listings and reviews for chatbots as well as all sorts of useful information. There are many disliked chatbots but just a few respected ones.

The difference between a good chatbot and a bad one, besides the logical question of if they intend to peruse skynet-like sentience, is their humor.  Good bots are unafraid of being less than human. In other words, they don’t try to pretend they are a replacement for human-to-human interaction.

The best bots have an “awe dad” sense of humor about themselves. They will tell you up front what they are about and what they can or cannot do.  One of my favorites, in fact, belongs to an Israeli startup named Imperson.  Imperson creates personality-based chatbots programmed to mimic, but not replace humans.

I also love the chatbots that aren’t chatbots but more like active listeners and information navigators. Take the one created by the device manufacturer Peel, for instance. After you purchase, you can immediately opt-in to receive updates via Facebook Messenger. As someone that was eagerly anticipating my iPhone 7 case and wanted it to arrive at or before the device did, the Facebook-facing interactions were simple and easy to access. It was much easier than going back to their site and it even remembered my order number.

Again though, Peel’s bot didn’t try to be anything it wasn’t. When I asked it a question it didn’t know – it referred me to other, more appropriate channels.

If the prevalence and development of apps were any indication, there is likely to be a rush to create chatbots of all kinds. The question is how many will be used and how many will make you come back for more?

By all indications, it’s the bot developers that think thoughtfully about what they should be vs. what they could be that end up cashing in.

Politics In 2016: Slacktivism & Digital Gamification

Last week, Hillary for America launched Hillary 2016. The app is meant to empower the masses to take action on behalf of the candidate and her issues.

The genius isn’t that the app will be the absolute game-changer in the campaign or will make the kinds of headlines that Pokémon Go has. The genius, in my opinion, is how the Clinton campaign is harnessing two massive digital trends – “slacktivism” and gamification – into a single powerful tool that might prove more effective than any other single digital campaign asset we’ve seen this election cycle.

To start with, let’s define what we’re talking about. In short, slacktivism is term used to described being active in a cause online – posting, commenting, re-posting, starting flame wars – but not so much in real life.

def. slacktivism (noun)
actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement, e.g., signing an online petition or joining a campaign group on a social media website.

For years, strategists – both digital and political – have lamented “slacktivists” as being emblematic of an increasingly lazy and disconnected populous. However, recent research suggests that these tweet-do-wells are actually an increasingly positive force.

In fact, there’s even evidence to suggest that slacktivists are more likely than the average online user to take an offline action like voting.

Digital “slacktivists” are 10% to 15% more likely to take an offline action like voting.

Source: The Rise of the Slactivist

This is where gamification comes in.  If you don’t know what gamification is ask the closest millennial to you to explain Pokémon Go.

Ok…back to the Hillary app. What I love about the app is that it takes slactivism and gamification and connects the two together.  For instance, you earn points for taking actions like learning about issues, RSVPing to a watch party, or passing along key messaging points. These points are redeemable for both virtual goods.  You can “purchase” furniture for your virtual campaign HQ or even real-world rewards like an autograph from the candidate, herself.

The HFA app uses slacktivism and gamification to mobilize voters.

Given the need for turnout and voter mobilization in this cycle, the process of collecting and redeeming stars is not only fun, but it helps the campaign.

In fact, I can’t help notice that the stars animation in the app looks exactly like the end scene from Iron Jawed Angels.  In case you haven’t seen it, IJA is features Hillary Swank as legendary suffragette Alice Paul.  As the 19th amendment to the constitution is ratified, Paul and her fellow activists are showered with yellow stars.

The same effect, almost down to the frame, happens in the HFA app.  Maybe a coincidence but I like to think some UI designer was that clever.


The UI aside, I think this is a great play for politics and, in particular, for Hillary for America. This app finally bridges the final mile between otherwise online, passive activists and real world action.

By no means is this a replacement for going out to vote. Nor does the app replace an on-the-ground operation. However one, we haven’t seen all of the app’s functionality.  Second, think of all the insights HFA will be able to gain from this user base.

In 2008, Obama took the humble email list and made it the most powerful digital tool in a campaign. In 2016, Hillary Clinton could very well have done the same thing for an app. Either way, digital strategists like myself will be watching the app performance closely.

We’ll be watching to see what we can learn about human behavior.  We’ll also be watching how we slacktivism and gamification come together to impact an organization and a brand.

Shattering The AdTech Fantasy

The problem with AdTech is simple: we have way too many over-engineered hammers looking for too few verifiable nails.

It almost conjures up images of Alice in Wonderland-esque humanoid tools, blindly shattering browser screens with reckless abandon. At least that’s what I like to think the dreams of my paid media brethren have been filled with the last 5 years.

The truth is though, they’ve been sleeping like babies thanks to several well-propagated lies. As Mark Duffy points out, we’re all about to get a wake up call in a very big way.

To avoid being stuck holding the bag like so many bad mortgage loans, allow me to point out those lies in very simple terms…

First, AdTech Is Built On Data Of Questionable Integrity

When an AdTech firm sells you a programmatic solution, you’re actually being sold two different things.  You’re being sold both technology and the data it runs on.

I’ve seen this technology and can tell you there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.  In most cases, it’s actually well thought-out and theoretically sound.

However, the challenge is when you start fueling the technology with bad data.

Think about gassing up your car with fuel that hasn’t been verified, has more fillers than anyone would like to admit, and is going to get you just about as far as the next filling station two blocks away.

The data we’re being sold is just that unreliable.

It’s a blend of shopping cart preferences and third-party data bundles.  In it are ridiculous broad-based assumptions that more often than not segment consumers into ill-defined categories for the sake of expediency rather than accuracy.

For example, I’ve seen data sets from programmatic vendors that purport to accurately identify high-value, affluent consumers.  Eager to design strategies to target these individuals, I wanted to know just what parts of their behavior caused them to appear in this group.

It turns out that the segment was called “Country Club” and that the only thing you had to do to be categorized in this group was to show an affinity for brands like J. Crew.  Suffice to say, pointing out the absurdity of this correlation didn’t win me any fans among the AdTech people on my team.

Therein lies the problem. As media professionals we’re OK with the lie as long as the results reach the absolutely ridiculous, low single-digit benchmarks that we’ve taken as gospel.

Second, Creative Isn’t Changing

Unlike fisherman who change their bait based on the specific fish they want to catch, the creative we’re using isn’t changing to meet the audience.

You would think this is a huge missed opportunity and it is.

If you are lucky enough to find a verify a prospect through programmatic, you would think that media professionals would put their best creative foot forward.

You would think they would spend just as much on developing really great, specific ads that are drawn from deep-seated understanding of the audience you’ve worked so hard to find.  You would, of course, be wrong.

But what about the technology? Isn’t finding the audience half the battle? Not really.

As Mark Duffy points out, the reason that ad-blocking technologies continue to grow in popularity despite the promise of programmatic is that consumers are still seeing the same pre-adtech creative.

This is why we’re still mired in such lousy response rates.

In fact, ask anyone who does one-to-one sales.  They will tell you that if you know who your audience is, and can effectively find them, even a cold-approach should net you a 1 in 10 chance of a conversion if you put any mental effort into the pitch at all.

What these two truths add up to is a well-intentioned, wildly expensive way to get the same result as you would without the technology.

I wish this wasn’t so.  I wish the data was better and that media teams would wake up to the fact that creative needs to be just as much priority as the technology.

In my experience though, if wishes were angels…In other words, this is why I’m a bigger fan of owned and shared media than I am paid.

Though paid is a great tool and isn’t going away, there’s going to be a lot of cleanup to do when the industry wakes up to so many shattered dreams.

Is marketing technology hindering our intelligence?

Whether you call it adtech, martech, marketing automation or programmatic, far too many marketers are treating technology solutions like they’re a panacea for our ailing relationships with consumers.

Don’t get me wrong — marketing technologies are amazing. They allow us to reach greater numbers of consumers with an increasing level of personalization. However, since the dawn of the printing press, countless marketers have looked at buttons as a way to turn their brains off. These technologies somehow make them believe they can get great — even better — results by reaching more people with the same tired, old pitches.

For instance, with the invention of the printing press, marketers thought volume was the solution. So they flooded the streets with flyers, which consumers promptly threw away. And with radio, these marketers tried to get noticed by turning up the volume, which only inspired consumers to turn the channel.

Many marketers today are playing the same game with digital communications. They replace community managers with auto-responders and try to use adtech to serve millions — if not billions — of “personalized” creative.

Here’s what these marketers are missing: with each advance in marketing technology, consumers also get smarter. They find new ways to tune marketers out. And that’s why we’re staring down the barrel of a crisis in advertising. This desire to find some peace amidst this deafening and relentless marketing chatter has spawned an entire industry — one dedicated to helping people completely block markets out.

The Solution? Training Our Brains as We Build Technology

The single greatest technology marketers have is the one square foot between their ears. As we improve our ability to serve more people in the same amount of time, we have to train our brains to keep pace with that evolution.

Rather than turning our minds off, we should advance our exploration of consumer behavior, research and creativity in step with technological progress.

I know — it’s not as fun as pushing a button, but ask anyone at any gym on the planet and they’ll tell you that all the technology in the world can’t substitute for the raw effort that comes from continuously challenging and pushing ourselves.

Think of it as a proportional sunk cost in the development of new technologies: as you calculate the costs and efficiencies of marketing automation, raw time and talent have to increase at the same rate. Only then will we be able to scale the creativity and innovation that consumers demand of us — and ideally grab their attention (not to mention their business, loyalty and advocacy) along the way.

Re-Posted From Jared’s Post On MoxieUSA.com

Back To The Future: Modernism In The Digital Age

If you’re looking for what’s next in marketing, you only have to look back — way back. I’m talking back to the turn of the last century.

In the early 1900s, culture and society had been redefined by the industrial revolution. Machines had literally re-engineered our way of life and, in their transformative wake, forced businesses from railroads to retailers to rethink what consumers wanted. The new era that dawned was known as modernism, and its trademark was the rejection of traditional ways of thinking. People in every industry and trade set out to remake everything in novel and inventive ways.

Sound familiar?

Today, we’re dealing with the aftermath of a much different revolution — one driven by the dual forces of digital and social innovation. Yet, much like its predecessor, the digital and social revolution has forever altered the very core of consumer behavior. And in this new era of marketing, the old rules not only don’t matter, but they can also undermine a brand’s bottom line.

That’s why 2016 isn’t going to be about a particular technology, app or device. It’s going to be about something bigger: How brands adapt to meet consumers’ demands for more meaningful engagement — and more control — than they have had at any other time in history.

2016 is going to be the year that digital modernism takes hold.

So What Exactly Is Digital Modernism?

The modernism of the early 20th century and digital modernism of 2016 share the same core principle: the reinvention of art, science and culture based on the impact of new technology.

Digital modernism, in particular, is about how brands are dealing with things like the proliferation of social media, the rise of mobile devices and their new balance of power with consumers.

Though these elements have been considered mainstream for upwards of half a decade, only now are they becoming the norm. Digital modernism is the next phase for these trends — one where the platforms themselves are no longer “new,” yet the ways that brands use them are.

Think about it: Even the most staid, traditional brands — conservative financial brands like Lloyds of London, legacy construction brands like Caterpillar and even the super-secretive CIA (@CIA) — have now bought fully into digital. It’s not enough to simply have a presence on digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram or to be active in digital advertising. A brand’s success today is defined by its ability to innovatively and creatively target and reach one consumer versus another.

Digital Modernism’s Impact on Strategy

Digital modernism’s most acute impact is on the world of strategy. Previously, strategy was about answering the question, “How?” Now we need to answer the question, “Why?”

Enter the era of modern digital strategy.

Like Michael Porter’s impact on business strategy itself, modern digital strategy isn’t just about the means in which brands articulate themselves in digital, but also how they use it to create a competitive advantage.

Digital Modernism’s Impact on Analytics

Analytics is the second area impacted by digital modernism. With the social and digital revolution specifically, we’re now looking well beyond the ability to track consumers, their conversations and behaviors.

Thanks to the combined forces of big data and digital modernism, our purview now encompasses millions of other aspects of consumers’ personalities, preferences, habits and more. We can now generate deep, actionable insights that enable us to enhance consumer relationships and privacy — at the same time. It’s a tough tightrope to walk, but it’s one that presents new opportunities for brands. And brands that can leverage big data to create experiences for their consumers that are progressively more relevant, meaningful and customized will be most successful.

Digital Modernism’s Impact on Creativity

Creativity is no longer about coming up with new ways to dazzle and captivate consumers. With digital modernism, it’s now personal: Brands must be able to use new technologies and consumer insights to craft not just one amazing experience but millions.

This type of creative won’t just be disruptive. It will have immense impact on the success rate of everything from banner ads to emails. Instead of measuring CTR in terms of halves of a percent, we’ll see many brands launch into double-digital success. By harnessing multiple customized creative ideations for each channel, brands will be able to become more relevant and more connected than ever.

Opportunity, With a Caveat

Whether we’re talking about strategy, analytics or creative, 2016 promises to be an exciting year for brands — and one full of unprecedented opportunities. The key question is how brands will respond. Remember, modernism wasn’t just a time for innovation, but also for natural selection in commerce. Ford’s Model T ignited the automobile revolution, but it also spurred competition. And competition can make or break brands. Digital modernism will no doubt bring similar pressures. Each brand’s ability to thrive will depend on how well it adapts and innovates.

Reposted From Jared’s Post On MoxieUSA.com

The Solution To Ad-Blocking? Try Better Ads


One of the things I love about social media is that it’s impossible to fake great content. This is a lesson that seems to be lost on the majority of advertisers trying to circumvent ad-blocking technologies.

If you haven’t heard about the battle between ad-blockers and advertisers, you should check out this article on DIGIDAY. It details not only the ways advertisers are getting around ad-blocking technologies but ways that advertisers can now actually buy their way past them.

All this effort, money, and frankly ethically grey behavior begs one question – why are advertisers trying to force something on users that they clearly don’t want?

Again, I refer back to social media. When a social media user doesn’t like a piece of content, it doesn’t get read, or liked, or shared. In response marketers have to come up with better content. In the end the users is – and hopefully will always be – the arbiter of whether a message gets through.

What some advertisers are tying to do is force the same intrusive content that forced ads to be blocked in the first place. Even the IAB is against this conflict-of-interest.

Personally, when an ad fails I look at the content, I look at the audience, and see if I missed some piece of the puzzle.

Almost always, I am trying to force my language on the audience versus speaking to the audience in theirs. I adjust the messaging and/or the format and see if I can’t make a connection with the audience that helps them solve a problem or realize a need. If I can’t do that in an appealing and compelling way the ad doesn’t deserve to be served.  It’s that simple.

If you’re an advertiser; please stop wasting your money on these kind of technologies.  Spend it on getting to know your audience or on great copywriters. In the end, your dollars will go way further and your clients will be much happier.

What The Burger King/McDonald’s “Peace” Situation Teaches Us About Strategy

Yesterday on Facebook I got into one of those heated discussions only strategy geeks get themselves into. My friend thought McDonald’s missed a huge opportunity passing on an “International Day of Peace” integration with Burger King. I, on the other hand, thought McDonald’s responded perfectly for their business situation.

My friend is probably one of the best PR strategists out there, if not one of the one’s most versed in how to use social media for prime gains in brand reputation. He made some excellent points including the fact that any other burger chain could easily step up, take the challenge, and score some easy and effective “brand points” in social media.

Now, don’t get me wrong. “Brand points” are great but rarely, if ever, have a lasting impact on earnings and/or revenue. If this manufactured PR tiff turns long-term, then we’re talking a different ball game.  However, and as I pointed out to my friend, to the people that care about McDonald’s this stunt is inside baseball and no one outside of the die-hard brand loyalists care.

Where some see McDonald’s as “lame” I see them as smart and measured. McDonald’s long-term strategy is about improving revenues by improving quality – or at least that’s what they say.  Their restaurants are now more cafes than they are drive-throughs and that’s a calculated measure.  They realize their revenues are being hit by the fast-casual segment, which draw away regulars.

What McDonald’s wants to do is reclaim their positioning not as a burger joint but as a wholesome food outlet.  Wholesome and McDonald’s don’t sound like they go together but when they first started out, they very much did. Roy Kroc realized that there was a vacuum in the 1950s for a clean, consistent alternative to the one-off drive-in diners. He captured the “family meal” dollar and that’s what they are trying to do, today.  That’s also what you see in McDonald’s reaction to Burger King’s overture.

Burger King, on the other hand, knows it needs to make its brand “hip” again.  It’s been on a 10-year guerrilla media blitz starting with it’s relationship with advertising powerhouse Crispin Porter.  They want to be the cult favorite in the burger wars, which is why their tactic was on-brand for them.  They knew that the McDonald’s strategy playbook wouldn’t allow them to engage and deviate from a planned and purposeful journey and that’s why they did it.  Their fans loved the overture and I’m betting it did just what it intended to do which is woo back McDonald’s customers that have defected to higher-end chains.

McDonald’s, meanwhile, is laser-like focused on building a new kind of customer.  That customer is more interested in the “family meal” than it is the latest social media craze.  McDonald’s reaction wasn’t exactly socially-savvy but it was a smart business play that not only met but exceeded expectations of their core audience.  Proving they are trying to be adult alternative may not please strategy and social geeks like my friend and I but it does show clarity of purpose and a focus on the audience behind the brand.

The conversation my friend and I had is the key difference between insider baseball and the real world. We might care about these things and even Burger King customers  – both current and potential – might care. However, PR and social media strategies have to serve the bottom-line rather than the needs and expectations of us, the “chattering class.”

Perhaps this dynamic might change in the future?  Perhaps if Burger King keeps hitting McDonald’s and the “family meal” dollar can’t be convinced to abandon their new-found love of Chipotle social media tiffs like this might make a difference.

In the meantime, though, we have to remind ourselves that we don’t get paid because customers “like” a brand on Facebook.  We get paid because they walk through the door of our client’s establishments and plunk down cold, hard cash.

Meerkat: Worth The First-Mover Risk?

Why the new live-streaming app might just be worth the risk for brands.

One of the biggest gambles a digital media professional can make is recommending a new social media platform. If it goes right, the client wins accolades for being a first mover. If it goes wrong, you’re the geek that cried “wolf” and wasted a lot of time and money.

This week, #SXSW will be abuzz about a new platform called Meerkat. Simply put, it’s a live-streaming video app that has direct integration with to Twitter. Meerkat-ers can schedule streams in advance or do one on the fly. Twitter users see Meerkat streams right in their feed if they follow the user’s Twitter accounts. Watching videos is fun and users can even tweet in-app to comment on streams.

We’ve seen other apps like this, such as Qik that never really took off. However, I’m actually kind of bullish on Meerket and here’s why:

1. It’s easy to get your head around.

Unlike Snapchat – which I still can’t figure out – the premise of Meerkat is simple. It’s interface is understandable and it conforms to video viewing and commenting behavior that users have become used to thanks to with popular platforms like YouTube and Webex.

2. It takes advantage of pre-existing platforms. 

I can’t underscore the importance of Twitter in the Meerkat equation. Rather than asking you to sign up for a new platform, users log in with their Twitter name and password. This is critical because I believe that users are at or nearing a point of platform saturation. Allowing users to skip the account creation process is going to speed adoption in a big way.

3. It fulfills a business need.

Finally, Meerkat delivers on something I think that users can enjoy and that marketers could really use – the fusion of streaming video and chat. The potential for use across PR, event marketing, and even corporate communications is HUGE. Just think about live-streaming a press conference, a product reveal, or even a just an “ask me anything” session.

Though we’ll have to wait and see if Meerkat really debuts as big as I think it will, it made a big enough impression on me to start ideating on ways my clients can utilize the new platform. In the meantime, follow me at @jareddegnan for live streams.

Countering The Issue Apathy That Kills 99% Of All Campaigns

There’s just no softer way to say it – most audiences are apathetic to any issue that doesn’t directly affect them. That’s why 99% of issue advocacy campaigns fail even before they begin.

Fully understanding why consumers care about the things they do and don’t care about the things they don’t is the first step in building better issue-based campaigns that drive better results.

Let’s start with the basics: not all people DON’T care. Chances are, however, that these people are already familiar with the issue. Many marketing communications professionals look to the people that care as their primary audience and, in certain cases, this is effective. When you have a plan to activate these people to lend their time, connections, and even fortune to a cause, this can be a great strategy.

However, more often than not, marketing communications professionals look to speak to these people that care as a way to “ignite the voices of their grassroots community.” This approach is admirable but is many times equivalent to over-watering a flower garden, washing out your message rather than inciting growth.

If you can’t reach the people who care, who is left?

One often overlooked constituency is people that maybe haven’t made up their mind on an issue. This strategy is often where we find the bulk of the audience where you can turn apathy into something more productive. You just have to know how to re-position the issue into something these people DO care about.

In order to accomplish this, we start with the basics of consumer decision-making…

  1. I care about me. – I am being asked to care about something else
  2. There’s stuff online about the thing I’m being asked to care about
  3. Does it pertain to me?No. – I’m going to ignore the issue. (50% of your audience)
    Yes. – This pertains to me but I’m going to ignore it anyway. (10% of your audience)
    Maybe. – This might pertain to me but I need more information (40% of your audience).

You see that 40%? That’s the sweet spot.

Yes, that 10% is important too but usually these set of consumers make snap judgments and ignore further overtures. The 40% though remain pliable, if you know how to serve up information on your issue that somehow pertains to them.

This 40% though is also why 99% of all issue-based campaigns fail. Organizations want to dwell on and talk about the issues that are important to THEM and that only incites more apathy.

To avoid this, take a closer look at our consumer-decision tree. The moment you make your appeal to consumers in terms they understand – in other words when you make it all about them – is the moment they start to care.

Keep in mind; most audiences don’t care about scientific studies, what bevies of experts have to say, or even the sympathetic consumer case studies. They care about themselves.

These consumers care about saving money, they care about spending more time with their family, they care about caring for their loved ones, they care about doing something for the greater good. Starting to re-position your issue so it hits on the reasons it impacts them is the key to unlocking the 40%.

That’s why opposition voices are sometimes so effective. They start by framing the issue in terms that audiences care about. They play on fears about health, they show the nasty effects of the issue on poor, cute fuzzy little woodland creatures, and generally tug at every heart string they can find. In short, they appeal to the audience’s heart.

Many marketing communications professionals, though they have a lot of heart, many times aren’t great at appealing to the heart.

This is particularly true when you’re dealing with trade groups when bottom-lines are threatened. Most organization executives and boards’ instincts are to counter with appeals to the head – with science. That approach is well intentioned but is ultimately ineffective vs. things like threats to the a fore mentioned cute, fuzzy woodland creatures.

The good news is that the 40% we mentioned do turn out to be reasonable. Their very nature tells them to give someone a chance when they talk about the issues that impact them. In other words, if issue-based campaigns appeal to the heart, and backs up their campaigns with the same science, facts, and expertise they were going to use anyway – the issue campaign succeeds.

The fact that most consumers just don’t care about anything other than themselves is a tough truth for some marketing communications professionals – particularly those run by people passionate about an issue.

However, when we start thinking about re-positioning campaigns to appeal to what consumers DO care about, our success rates start to look a lot, lot better.

Explaining The Advantages Of Emma Email Marketing Vs Outlook To Non-Techie Co-Workers

Working with folks that are decidedly non-digital can be challenging. It can also be a hell of a lot of fun…if you play your cards right. For instance , a coworker was asking about our company’s recommended move to Emma Email Marketing.

Now, for anyone who has managed any type of email marketing campaign, the reasons NOT to use Outlook are pretty obvious. However, part of digital strategy is explaining things in clear and simple terms. Observe:

Dear {Coworker},

There’s an easy way and a visual way to explain what happens when you send a blast email out from outlook:


The kitten in this picture is a blast email via outlook.  It looks like it’s all cute and normal and nothing’s wrong with it.   The things in the background…yeah – that’s the metaphorical manifestation of collective spam-sensitivity karma of the internet.

The only thing is that the karma doesn’t get the kitten…it gets the system that the kitten came out of.  In this case our company. This is what karma does to our servers when it catches up:


Karma rips up any authority our servers have because it thinks that we’re spamming people. It puts us on what’s known as a blacklist.  When you get blacklisted, it looks like this:


Basically, our ability to send any type of email is compromised because our email tends to go to spam folders.  This is what happens to Mike, our IT manager, when our servers are blacklisted:


So, in summary….

As to not incite the collective wrath of the internet, grind our ability to send emails to a screeching halt, and cause Mike a nervous breakdown, use EMMA.


PS – I might be overstating a bit for dramatic effect but that’s pretty much what happens… http://www.bluegrassdigital.com/blog/2011/june/29/why-sending-bulk-email-campaigns-from-outlook-is-a-bad-idea/

As you might imagine, this kind of response endears me to my co-workers.

Third-Party Website Functions Can Ruin Customer Relationships

It’s not like anyone likes to get a traffic citation but at least the Dekalb Country officer that pulled me over for a rolling stop was nice about it.

Despite the fact it was raining, the officer politely explained what I had done, pointed me to the online instructions on how to pay the citation, and even apologized for the inconvenience. As a customer experience, particularly in setting expectations, it was a textbook encounter.

Initial interactions like these can go a long way in building trust and the long term potential value of a customer. For instance, though I don’t currently reside in Dekalb Country, should I ever consider moving here or even spending more time and money here, that encounter set a positive expectation in how I might be treated. However, that encounter was only one touch-point.

To maintain that level of trust and continue building that relationship, that expectation of clear and transparent communication has to be upheld.

Now, I realize that only customer strategy geeks like myself intellectualize a traffic citation like this but follow along…Flash forward to a couple hours later: thanks to the officers explanation, I see I clearly deserved the citation and I decided to go ahead and pay the fine.

Flaw One – Long URLs & Broken Redirects

I followed the instructions on the citation, only to find that not only was the website they were directing me a very long URL that I had to enter manually, the page it did send me to was dead. Not cool but not altogether frustrating. After all, sometimes it takes a while to update text copy on receipts and forward progress on shorter URLs are always a good thing, right?

Flaw Two – More Than 3 Clicks To Get To What I Need

After arriving at the broken link I decided to go back to Dekalb County’s website. Surely traffic citations and other forms of revenue must be one of the more important things to the city so it can’t be that hard to find, right? Apparently not. Not only did it take me more than 5 minutes on their home page to find the right link, I had to click through several more times just to find the link to the right form for traffic citations.

Flaw Three – The Third-Party Payment System

At this point, my experience with the polite cop has been eclipsed by the “typical government bureaucracy ” frustration. All I want to do is pay the fine and get back to playing on Facebook. The fine itself isn’t that bad but apparently I also have to pay a court fee and a “convenience fee.”  Neither of these fees are explained and I feel very much taken advantage of.

This kind of experience underscores how third-party website functions can undo any goodwill for a customer.  Explanation and consistency is key to keeping a strong customer relationship. If you do have to go with a third-party system, think about those three major flaws and how you can avoid them.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, the citation for a rolling stop has drained me of my lunch money and I now have to go heat up my ramen noodles.

Let’s Start A Shadow Marketing Campaign For The ASO!

If a symphony plays in midtown and no one is around to hear it, does it sound as beautiful?

Let me ask it another way…what does it take to translate art into a marketing campaign? Money? Resources? Media Attention?

The truth is that great marketing campaigns are never, and have never been built on big budgets. Sure money, resources and media attention helps but what really compels marketing to touch the very heart and soul of its intended audience is the passion and conviction of its creators.

This truth isn’t new. In fact, artists like musicians have relied on it for centuries to produce some of the most compelling “communications” in human history.

It’s no wonder then, that the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra is up in arms about it’s own marketing. After enduring an extended lockout, they are ready to show Atlanta why it is the great cultural epicenter of the south. You would never know it, though by looking at their marketing.

I’m not trying to pass judgement on whoever does the marketing for the ASO. However, I am interested in knowing what people that benefit and are inspired from the music of the ASO can do if they took brush to paper?

Starting today, I am going to publish one piece of marketing collateral for the ASO. A tweet, a Facebook post, a brochure, a flyer…something that says what I think the ASO means to me and to Atlanta. I am encouraging my friends in the marketing space to join in. Let’s create a shadow/grassroots marketing campaign for the ASO that helps them sustain their efforts and shows the Woodruff Arts Center we support arts in the community in a very real and tangible way.

Just to be safe, let’s set the basic standard that if we wouldn’t show it in our own professional portfolios, let’s not publish it. Post your creation with the hashtag #ASOgrassroots. Let’s see if we can even come close to creating marketing with the magic and conviction of the ASO musicians.

Photo Courtesy of Flickr User – Wally Gobetz (via Creative Commons)

PS – Flickr is a great place to find photos to support your marketing collateral.  Just make sure it’s under the Creative Commons license!  

Dealing With Facebook’s New Promotional Content Penalty

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]Late last week Facebook announced a significant change to its news feed algorithm as it pertains to promoted posts.

Though the change – slated to go live in Jan 2015 – will hit retailers and/or eCommerce sites the hardest, there are some key ways you can deal with this penalty before it costs you a dime:[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

The Rule Of Quality Content Still Stands

Facebook is making this change to crack down on pages that go for the “hard sell” with a direct call to action (CTA) in a promoted post. We’ve known this for a while, including their move earlier this year to eliminate “like bait.” As of now, Facebook is just trying to make it harder to get away with bad content by penalizing marketers that try to compensate with promoted posts.

Chances are if you’re creative and make your content stand out with personality, value to the reader (outside the CTA), and that appeals to the way users naturally share and converse on Facebook you’ll be fine.  If you’re {achem} more laid back about your content and it sounds a little too much like a billboard or a banner ad, you’re going to find it much more expensive to get your content read[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

Avoid “Hard Sell” Keywords In Your Posts

For instance, if your post says “buy now,” “click here,” “enter our promotion,”  or similar CTAs, it will likely trigger the penalty. This includes promotions without a ton of context (i.e. sweepstakes vs. contests).

The good news is that this is not a deal-killer for promotions on Facebook.  You just have to think through how you make “the ask” for promotions and consider the venue.  It’s possible that Instagram, Tumblr or Twitter might make a better platform for a promotion depending on how explicit you need the CTA to be.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

Make Ads Unique From Promoted Posts

This the easiest thing to avoid.  Facebook is now going to cross-reference your promoted posts and ads.  If the content overlaps, it will invoke the penalty and it will costs you more to reach the same amount of people.

My advice for this one is that if you have hard sells, use them in your ads.  Use your posts to tell a story, to highlight content, and/or highlight an issue.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]Again, this penalty only affects promoted posts starting in 2015.  It does not mean promoted posts are going away but you may see impact on your ultimate reach numbers and cost.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

© 2015 – 2016 Degnan Media | All rights reserved.