HFTB Marketing Blog

Image by lepiaf.geo

I spend a lot of time in Starbucks. In between client meetings I tend to locate the nearest coffee shop to check email or catch up on other work.

One thing I notice in just about all Starbucks is the state of the condiment bars.

I don’t actually use the condiment bars, as I prefer a black cup of coffee to the multi-syllabic, linguistically confusing creations that have become the norm.

Who knew, by the way, that so many are lactose intolerant. Crazy.

Anyway, Irritable Bowel Syndrome aside, the point of the condiment bar observation has little to do with what you are, or aren’t, putting in your coffee. My issue is the way people leave the bar after they’ve used it.

As I see it, there are two types of people.

1.) Those who leave the bar as it was, or better, than when they arrived

2.) And those that contribute to what I would call, condiment bar entropy

Entropy is defined as “inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.”

Look, we all know that at some point the barrista will have to come over and clean the bar. Fair enough… that’s part of their job.

But how some people scatter cinnamon and Equal and half and half all over the bar and then just walk away, is totally beyond me.

What goes through these people’s minds? They just too busy? Or maybe they just don’t care. Maybe they believe the $8 they spent on their tome-titled beverage entitles them to act like petulant children refusing to clean-up a spill.

As I see it, this is a real dividing line in society. It has parallels in the way people treat servers in restaurants, service people in hotels and manual laborers like janitors and housekeepers.

And quite frankly, you can tell a lot about someone by observing these types of behavior.

I know this is a social media and marketing blog, and I could go on and make a half-ass analogy (although I typically try to use my whole ass) about how the same type of people affect the new media marketing world. And there may be some validity in those comparisons.

But for now, just clean-up after yourself when you fix your coffee. Or maybe even, I don’t know, clean-up after those that don’t.

Might feel good to leave the bar a better place than you found it.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Marketing coffee shop, email, Marketing, Social Media, Starbucks

Too busy to really manage your online presence?  It can definitely be time consuming.

But there are things you can do to minimize your time constraints and more importantly, maximize the effectiveness of your online efforts.

Chris Brogan has posted a couple of times in the last few weeks on routines for managing your web presence.  Thought I would pass along the links in hopes his ideas will help you become a more effective social media contributor.

And heck, hard to argue with his results.

19 Presence Management Chores You COULD Do Every Day

Five Tasks in the Morning

Any other suggestions, love to hear your favorites.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Marketing, Social Media Chores, Chris Brogan, Contributor, Favorites, Heck, Love, online presence, Presence Management, Social Media, Time Constraints, Web Presence

The term “going corporate” has always bothered me. It’s often used as a catch-all term for selling out. Why? Mostly because whoever is being accused of it is likely making more money than their accusers.

But is it fair to level criticism against those that succeed… merely for succeeding?

Image by Tony the Misfit

David Meerman Scott’s blog, WebInkNow, has a post highlighting a video done by Engage | ORM comparing the punk rock movement to the social media movement (if it can be called a movement?).

The video is definitely worth taking a look at. It’s well done and points out some interesting parallels.

But the thing I find interesting about the comparison has more to do with a couple of the comments on the post. Specifically, the idea of corporate America’s inability to really get social media and its implications.

So how does this tie to the punk movement of the ’70s?

Those that are in at the beginning of a movement, no matter how counter-culture or against the grain it might be initially, will impose their own rules as to what defines that movement as it gains steam – or more accurately, becomes more popular. It happened with punk, and unfortunately, looks to be happening with social media.

While I consider myself a punk rock fan, one of the things I’ve always really disliked is the exclusion of great bands as soon as they sign their first big deal. Or in other words… go corporate.

There is a possessive tendency amongst most bands’ first fan bases. This is the “I knew about them when…” syndrome. And although some bands surely change with money and fame, there are many that don’t.

Social media suffers from some of this too. The idea that there is purity in certain types of content or techniques is dangerous because it necessarily excludes those that might innovate. And if anything, one aspect of social media, or more inclusively, new media, is a divergence from the norm (characterized by the mainstream media).

But as the boundaries to what is social media are drawn by those that are initially successful, we fall into the trap of discounting those that take a different position or that would innovate within a more inclusive medium.  And after all, what could be more inclusive than social media?  A medium seemingly designed to give everyone, including those nasty big corporations, an equal voice.

The analogy with punk is strong here. I know many former fans of some great bands that stopped listening when they hit MTV or appeared in a big budget Hollywood movie. Once again, why? The music was still the same. They just weren’t the only ones listening anymore.

Corporate America is getting social media as we speak. It is simply too powerful a force to remain relegated to a small group of enlightened souls.

Does this mean that it will be irreparably changed? Maybe. But not necessarily for the worse.

Just as bands like Rancid and Green Day continue to be punk rock to the core despite their mainstream success, so will social media continue to be an outlet for candid and frank expression – regardless of how “corporate” it gets.

There is a place for all sorts in the social media world.  Value is the true measure, and doesn’t discriminate.

So don’t tell me what is and what isn’t punk rock,… or social media.  Always good to throw in a horn section, reggae rhythm, or corporate blog for that matter.

Nothing like pissing off the purists.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Marketing, Social Media New Marketing, new media strategy, Online marketing, Social Media, social media marketing

Walk through your local grocery store’s produce section and one thing is clear – organic sells. In the last decade or so, the term organic has come to stand for products that are free of hormones, additives or preservatives that have in the past, made our food look better, grow bigger, or last longer.

image by Secret Tenerife

In short, organic is natural.

So why the move away from seemingly beneficial, man-made science?

The answer is perception. There is a perception that organic is necessarily better for you because it lacks unnatural influences.

I caught a Hubspot webinar this week that touched on the pros of organic. Of course, we’re talking about search at this point, not apples and oranges.

The subject of the webinar was managing a move away from Google PPC (pay per click) campaigns in favor of an organic Search Engine Optimization (SEO) strategy. Organic, in the case of SEO, refers to the results that are listed on the left hand side of the search results pages (SRP) as opposed to those PPC results on the right.

The basic gist of the webinar was that organic results are, simply put, better than PPC results. To be fair, I imagine Hubspot would claim the timeframe makes a difference here – organic results requiring in almost all cases a longer term to show results.

But I think the idea of one type of traffic as better than the other is an oversimplification. And here’s why.

There is a perception that organic results are free. Once again, as with food, perception colors the organic discussion.

Organic search is anything but free. In fact, I would argue that organic results are often more expensive, at least in the short term, than are PPC results.

Organic results require Google to recognize your site, and more accurately your site content, as extremely relevant to your desired search terms (or keywords). What has to happen for this to occur? A lot of things.

First, you’re going to need relevant, targeted and keyword-rich content. Then you’re going to need highly ranked sites to link to yours. Next, you need to make sure you are putting out new content, still as relevant as the existing content, very frequently. And don’t forget about your on-page optimization.

So is it hopeless? Should you quit your organic efforts before you start? Not at all. These are important pieces to your overall SEO strategy. But recognize that organic is not free. And while it uses the term organic, it doesn’t mean that it is necessarily better than PPC campaigns at driving prospective customers to your site.

Instead, let’s look at PPC and organic SEO on a continuum. Some business objectives favor organic results, some favor PPC. But almost all can benefit from the right mix of the two. In other words, no need to cancel your Google account.

But what do we know about the differences between the two tactics?

Well, we know that for your organic rankings to pay off, you’re going to need to make a commitment, over time, to a substantial amount of work. For most businesses, that means dedicating an internal resource to managing your web efforts. And depending on the size of your company and your online goals, this can be a full-time job.

Not sounding so inexpensive, dare I say “organic,” any more.

PPC campaigns on the other hand, are less time intensive, but have a measurable price tag attached. That price tag, while ranging in relative cost from inexpensive to expensive depending on your industry, is very manageable. You control, to a great degree, how much you spend. And, as a result, you control how much traffic Google sends to your site. The trade-off is the time and effort of an internal resource for an added expense.

So on one hand we have organic results taking a long-term, dedicated effort by an internal person or persons. On the other, we have a fast and eminently manageable expense that drives traffic to your site right now. The key to a successful strategy is leveraging both in varying degrees.

And as such, I would argue that both should play an ongoing role in most companies’ online marketing efforts.

While both organic and PPC can be effective, know what you’re in for if you choose to focus exclusively on the former. There’s no free lunch after all… not even if it’s organic.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Marketing, New Marketing, SEO digital marketing, New Marketing, new media strategy, Online marketing, optimize websites, organic search, PPC

taking a breather

I hear this from companies all the time. Usually goes something like this.

“Blogging just isn’t right for our company. We’d like to avoid some of the negativity out there. We like a little more control over our brand image.”

Control. Silly concept, really. Do companies think they have more control over their brand image if they don’t engage their customers on the negative aspects of their products or services? Seems a bit like ostrich syndrome to me… head planted firmly in the sand.

So let’s look at the alternative. Let’s assume the same company that initially rejected blogging (or social media in general for that matter) decided to put themselves out there. They start a blog, publicize it and make an effort to add relevant content over time.

What are the effects on their brand image?

Well, assuming the company has a recognizable brand and they spend the time and effort necessary to build a successful blog, they enter the discussion.

This is the key point. The discussion already exists. The difference is the company is now a participant. And as a participant, the negativity, which existed all along, can 1.) be addressed in the short term, and 2.) be acted upon and remedied in the long term.

Chris Brogan had a great post about his experience visiting Humana corporate headquarters. The post is about Humana’s unique efforts to combat the reactive vs. proactive health insurance model. And although the post is interesting for content alone, one of the comment strings is what really drew my attention – and ties into the above, by the way.

One commenter had less than positive things to say about Humana’s services. And she said it – in no uncertain terms. Now Brogan’s post was unequivocally positive, so the comment came in stark contrast to the rest of the commentary.

Here’s where we come back to the “losing control” topic.

This is a perfect example of a company putting itself out there (even though the post is from Brogan’s blog, the folks at Humana knew what they were doing by inviting Chris to their headquarters – his blog is after all in the top 100). And things were going great until the fourth comment on the piece.

Perfect definition of losing control. Humana can’t simply edit the comment out of the string, and I’d be surprised if Brogan would be receptive to a call from the VP of Marketing asking for its removal. So what to do?

Why not respond?

And that’s exactly what Humana did. Professionally. Quickly. And with a real answer. Wow, an insurance company with a face. Sounds like a differentiator to me.

And I will admit that in the future I am more likely to consider Humana as a result.

So what’s to gain from losing control?

Customers… profits… and enhanced brand image to start.

image by Pedronet

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Marketing, Social Media blogging, customer relationships, Marketing, New Marketing, new media strategy, Online marketing, Social Media, social media marketing