marketing

You are currently browsing the archive for the marketing category.

Norm MacDonald and the Reclamation of Voice

April 10, 2011 in innovation, marketing by George | No comments

I’ve been a huge fan of Norm MacDonald’s since he hosted SNL’s Weekend Update. I believe this was the last time SNL was semi-dangerous. No one knew what Mr. MacDonald would say, and this inability to keep him under censorial wraps apparently led to his untimely dismissal (see exhibit A below; apologies to all who are offended – sort of).

In any case, he’s back (we shall not discuss his short-lived network tv show), and is now hosting a sports show.

I know this not because I’m a sports fan, but because I follow Mr. MacDonald’s tweets.

In this way I became aware that he would be providing audio commentary during the Masters Tournament.

Again, not being a big sports fan, I don’t imagine I would’ve watched any of the Masters had it not been for Mr. MacDonald’s audio commentary, but, out of curiousity, I tuned in — both to the network broadcast and the Norm MacDonald online commentary (done via UStream) Sunday afternoon.

Within about five minutes of having audio on from both the network telecast and the MacDonald webstream, I muted the network commentators, and listened instead exclusively to Mr. MacDonald (and his less-entertaining cronies).

Beyond making golf more tolerable, this concept of sort of hi-jacking one form of programming and adding another layer to it is very interesting to me.

Certainly, this isn’t new. I remember my Granddad muting the TV and listening to the radio commentators during Washington Redskin games in the 70s and 80s.

And, of course, there was (is?) Mystery Science Theater, which added snarky comments to “B” movies.

What makes what Mr. MacDonald is doing different from the above examples is that it shows – in theory – the accessability of this gambit to just about anyone.

If you have a voice and some modicum of (real or perecieved) expertise about a topic, you can now use free tools to commentate on just about anything, and (potentially) provide an alternative to the “programmed” approach.

This is, of course, consistent with all sorts of “re-mix” culture (mashups, remixes, artists supplying constituents with ProTools stems, etc.), but something else is going on here as well.

It has more to do with the continued reclamation of the voice that – to a certain degree – began occurring with the dawn of the Internet, and has accelerated with the development of social channels.

No longer must we sit passively and listen to the inane patter of some “commentator.” If we elect to do so, we can provide our own commentary, and, depending upon our POV, skills, network, etc., provide an alternative.

I don’t for a minute think that more than a fraction of the people who listened to the Masters commentators listened to Mr. MacDonald’s commentary stream, but, the fact of the matter is, there was an alternative, and for me at least, a far superior alternative.

I hope that this type of thing takes off.

Why, for instance, wouldn’t Perez Hilton provide commentary during the Oscars (God, Help us. And, yes, you can send me angry messages if he decides to do this). Or, better, Scorcese?

What about some musical “expert” providing commentary for the Grammys?

What about someone like Ana Marie Cox providing audio commentary for the next RNC? (I loved her live blogging (now twittering, I guess) of prior political events).

There are numerous financial experts for whom I would gladly mute CNBC’s commentators in order to listen to as the market day evolves.

I imagine we’ll see more of this type of stuff; how can we not?

Remember, we all have megaphones, and, increasingly, there are creative ways to use them.

And now… vintage Norm MacDonald:

Tags: ,

what I love about now: from idea to action…fast

March 5, 2011 in design, entrepreneurship, innovation, marketing by George | 5 comments

I wrote a post a bit ago called “Buy One, Give One Free” that got batted around the Internet a bit.

The basic gist of my post was that artists (musicians, writers, poets, et al.) could adopt some ideas from Social Entrepreneurship , and repurpose these ideas to their benefit; specifically, the idea (most visible via Toms Shoes) of making it possible to give a product away when a customer buys one.

I bemoaned the fact that I didn’t see an implementation of this type of thing in the arts:

I’ve been frustrated by the lack of a mechanism for this type of sharing of information, which makes it easy for the existent constituent to introduce the work to her friends. As above, one may exist, and, if so, I’d love to see some examples, so please leave them in the comments.

Well, I’m really happy to report that, due to the fact that I have some brilliant friends, we’re making some progress.

I saw the following tweet from Ty White the other day, and new I was in for something good:

As Ty says in his blog post

A few months ago, George Howard blogged about a great idea for artists trying to get their word out: offer your fans the option to send a free copy of the record to a friend when they buy a copy for themselves. It’s a great way to offer your fans additional social capital (by sending a copy of a great record to a friend) while helping the artist get introduced to new people.

I took this idea to Jim from All Smiles, who immediately agreed to try it out with the new record. Easier said than done. As it turned out, we needed a new API call from Topspin (BIG thanks to Varley and Kris!) to detect when the purchase was complete, and also needed a way to store the sharers name, recipient’s name, and recipient’s email. I dove into PHP and MySQL for the first time, and thankfully Topspin bent over backwards to help get the API calls working.

As you can see, it takes a unique type of person (like Ty unquestionably is) to not only see value in an idea (and give credit where credit is due), but implement the idea. As Ty wrote, this was “easier said than done.”

Nevertheless, he did it, and the results have been solid:

Two weeks ago we launched pre-order, and this Tuesday the album hit the street. As of writing, we’ve seen 21% of purchasers take the option to send the album to a friend.

Ty feels this number (21%) can be higher with some tweaking, and offers some good suggestions on how to improve.

My point in all this is that we live today in an era where we can rapidly go from idea to execution. This delights me to no end. Not long ago, in order to get any type of web-based idea up and running was a long, expensive, tedious process that more often than not took the wind out of the excitement of the idea. In other words, you knew that it was going to be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to try something out, so you didn’t try. Not good.

Today, we can try with much lower costs (real and opportunity).

I’m fully aware that it takes a uniquely talented type of person, like Ty, to be able to pull something like the “Buy One, Give One Free” idea, but it can be done, and, increasingly, it can be done quickly and cheaply.

This bodes very well for all of us. The more ideas that can get to market – in order to succeed or fail – faster, the better.

Thanks, Ty, for making my little idea manifest. Let’s now continuously improve.

Tags: ,

Buy One, Give One Free: What Artists can learn from Social Entrepreneurship

January 2, 2011 in entrepreneurship, marketing, strategy by George | 2 comments

One of my greatest frustrations with respect to marketing has been that while I speak often about human’s predisposition to share, we’ve yet — in the entertainment realm — developed a way to encourage/reward sharing/sharers.

A bit of background. It was when music/books/movies/etc. went from being objects (analog) to being information (digital) that people could finally satisfy their hard-wired impulse to share with no downside.

Prior to this, if I wanted to share an album/book/DVD with you, when I gave it to you I was deprived of my copy — you win, I half lose/half win. Post the shift to information, when I share my digital versions with you, I still keep my copy — we both win.

This switch, naturally, had a massively disruptive impact on media (and other) businesses. It’s really the underlying cause of the crumbling of the firmament of the old-school media businesses. We’re doing what we’ve always done/wanted to do (share information), it’s just that now, with the switch from objects (analog) to shareable-information (digital), scarcity-based economic business models are left scrambling to find a purpose that can be monetized.

In any case, we can all agree with Mark Earls when he says:

Human beings are to independent action, as cats are to swimming. We can do it if we really have to, but mostly we don’t…. Instead, we do what we do because of what those around us are doing (Whatever our minds and our cultures tell us). So if you want to change what I’m doing, don’t try to persuade me — don’t try to make me do anything. I can’t make anyone do anything. They do what they do because of their peers.

So, we as content creators desperately need to encourage our constituents to share. In the past, I’ve made facile suggestions to artists (musicians, visual artists, etc.) to attempt things like “buy one, give one free” in the analog realm. That is, when someone buys a CD at your show, offer them a second for free, with the request that the person buying the CD give this second one to someone they believe will appreciate the music. Same with prints of photos, etc.

While not exactly the most innovative (or measurable) strategy in the world, I still think there’s merit to to this approach. However, it doesn’t really scale, and I’m constantly asked by people with whom I work if there’s a way to reward digital sharing.

So far, what we’re seeing is variants on the “RT for song” that firms like CASH Music have developed. I, of course, love this type of approach, and hope more utilize it (Disclosure: I’m a proud CASH board member).

However, I believe this approach needs to be expanded upon.

I genuinely hope that artists in 2011 take the approach that when a customer purchases their digital work, they are presented with the opportunity to email a copy to a friend they feel will appreciate it. Perhaps this is part of the transaction cost that the initial customer must bear. In other words, prior to the original customer gaining access to the digital work, she must not only pay, but also enter a verifiable email address of one of her friends, who she believes would enjoy the work.

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, it should. Beyond the fact that I’d be surprised if someone smart in the media world hasn’t tried this (it seems like, for instance, something Topspin or Kristin Hersh would be doing), it’s very consistent with what appears to be an emergent tenet of social entrepreneurship. The most visible example, of course, being Toms Shoes. Their “One pair sold = one pair donated” approach is not only virtuous, but also great marketing.

When I introduce the concept of social entreprenuership to my students, the very first example I offer is Toms Shoes. When I ask how many people have heard of Toms, typically two-thirds of the students raise their hands. There are very few companies that when I ask my students if they’ve heard of that I get that type of response. And, yet, to my knowledge, Toms has spent little on traditional advertising. Rather, their conceit of “buy one, give one free” has done the work for them (of course, there are costs associated with Toms’ approach, but I’m guessing these are less than what a traditional ad campaign would cost, and clearly their approach is more effective and vrituous).

I’ve long felt that there is a linkage between social entrepreneurship (“team of teams,” small groups, emphasis on “changemakers,” “purpose-driven brands,” etc.), and the creative arts. I believe both can learn from each other.

I do hope that more in the creative arts glean from social entrepreneurship this notion of “buy one, give one free.”

I’ve been frustrated by the lack of a mechanism for this type of sharing of information, which makes it easy for the existent constituent to introduce the work to her friends. As above, one may exist, and, if so, I’d love to see some examples, so please leave them in the comments.

Here’s hoping we see this develop in 2011.

Tags: , , , ,

Into your arms, Into your arms

December 29, 2010 in creativity, marketing by George | 4 comments

There’s a very specific mental and physiological unity that occurs when a parent holds his or her arms out to their approaching young child.

If you’re a parent you know precisely this moment. I’ve dissected it:

The knees bend, the arms outstretch, the gaze is intensely focused on your approaching child, and you smile in the most natural and unself-conscious way.

Your mind, all the while, attempts to propel love and confidence and joy directly to your child.

Once in your grasp, your eyes involuntarily close, your smile widens, you don’t breathe, and you raise your child briefly over your head, open your eyes, and look intently into their face.

You then bring your child to you, close your eyes again, kiss the top of their head, smell all that is good in this world, hold them as tightly as you can without holding them too hard.

You note almost subliminally that time has stopped, put them down, and then breathe again.

The moment is really all about the embrace. What happens before and after, however, defines us.

What or who we choose to embrace defines us.

All the work we do — as parents, as partners to our significant others, as friends, as good business people as good artists — on either side of those all-too-infrequent embraceable moments define the quality of the embrace.

If we imagine what we want that embrace to feel like — and remember, it’s only an embrace if it’s emotionally and physically symmetrical — our actions, pre and post-embrace, improve.

In business we call this imagining a “Vision Statement.” You imagine, in the most granular detail, what you want your business to look like, and how it will lead to the accomplishment of your mission (I prefer “purpose” to “mission,” but you know what I mean).

So, as you think about your businesses, whatever they may be — from the investment banker to the folk artist — consider that moment of embrace. That moment when the deal works for everyone, when the audience and artist are unified, when a piece of prose or a photo or a song transcends and it’s no longer about creator/constituent, but rather about the intertwining.

Imagine, if you will, you as creator/business-person holding your arms out to your approaching constituent(s). Imagine that all you do, all you create, all the businesses you start, all the deals you make are made with the same hopes that every parent has: that their child will see these open arms and accelerate their gait and literally leap into your arms with shiny eyes and open-mouthed smiles.

Happy New Year, and thanks to all who read my blog. I wish you nothing but health, happiness, and accomplishment for the coming year.

George

Tags:

Content Creators: It’s Better to Own than to Rent

December 19, 2010 in marketing, strategy, tech by George | No comments

I’m hopeful that the recent Yahoo! debacle will underscore a point I’ve been trying to make for seemingly ever:

Don’t build brand equity for other sites; instead leverage these non-owned “tools” to increase the value of your owned asset.

One would have thought that the thrashing that FB gave to MySpace would have been clue enough. MySpace was the place where artists began to stake out their digital homestead. Countless hours were spent “pimping” their pages, growing their list of fans/friends, updating their tour schedules, uploading photos, etc., etc.

While, admittedly, if MySpace still has anything going for it it’s music, no one can argue that the vast majority of the time, energy, and cost (real and opportunity) that artists put into their MySpace pages was wasted. MySpace no longer offers an artist any real value; particularly when compared with the value that Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/YouTube/etc. provide(s).

Still, the very fact that I continue to see artists eschewing the development of their own (owned) online presence in favor of utilizing non-owned sites (Bandcamp, ReverbNation, or others) for their primary online identity makes me fear that the message is not getting through.

Now we see Yahoo! “sunsetting” some of their properties (or maybe not – who the hell knows). In particular, the sunsetting (or not) of Delicious (nee del.icio.us) seems to have caused not only something of a nerd-class (of which I consider myself a card-carrying member) riot, but raised the concern of even those one standard deviation away from the nerd-class because of another property that Yahoo! may or may not sunset: Flickr.

This quote from a TechCrunch article on the Delicious situation sums it up:

The entire time I was reading the back and forth of [the Delicious] fiasco, I had one thought on my mind: I need to get my pictures out of Flickr, pronto. No, Flickr wasn’t on the list of companies being “sunset”, but how do I know that in a year it won’t be? Hell, maybe even 6 months from now? I don’t. In fact, I’d say it’s 50/50 that something similar happens with that service.

Be it based upon this Flickr-related fear; the inexorable move towards irrelevance of the once-important MySpace; the continued lack of real music commitment from Facebook; the understandable growing pains of Tumblr; or whatever else it might take, I hope that artists will realize that they must be platform agnostic.

I’m not for one fraction of a second suggesting that artists should not use these services — in a thoughtful manner that is part of a larger strategy; not just as a random act of improvement.

MySpace, for some period of time absolutely did provide value for artists. Facebook, Twitter, etc., are perhaps the greatest marketing tools artists have ever had at their disposal.

Some of these sites/tools will stick around (most won’t), and while they’re around, artists should use them for all they’re worth. But remember, while you as an artist may be deriving benefit from these sites/tools, with every piece of content you contribute you are definitely building the brand equity for these sites, rather than for your owned assets.

The right approach is to use these services with the single-minded goal of driving people from these sites to your own (owned) site, where you can collect both data and traffic. (For more on this, you might be interested in this article.)

In other words, rent space from these sites/tools, but own your dominant online presence.

The alternative is to be at the whim of Yahoo! or Murdoch or someone else who may decide they no longer wish to support a platform which you’ve come to rely on. As all owners do, they’ll kick you out and move on, while you’re left putting bubble wrap around the wine glasses.

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »

Bad Behavior has blocked 1132 access attempts in the last 7 days.