Place, product, price and promotion.

We all learned these basic marketing principles in college and they still stand up today. But the social web is a true shift in the way we communicate and go to market.  For the first time, mankind has access to real-time, free, instantaneous, two-way, global communication — and the good old marketing mantra needs a little updating.  Here are my thoughts on the NEW Four P’s of social media marketing — People, Presence, Pervasiveness and Publishing.

People

The social web is the first true PEOPLE-driven communication channel.  Everybody’s a video star, a rock star, a broadcaster, an author. Everybody creates, reviews, publishes, and bitches.  Publicly.  Permanently.  We have the opportunity to listen intimately and often. We can tune in to laugh and cry with our customers, wherever they are in the world. The consumer-driven web is the biggest marketing revolution since radio.

Presence

This is different from the old concept of “place.”  The old marketing “place” to sell, market or distribute was a tangible location like a grocery store. We knew where our consumers were … and they’ve probably been there for decades.   Where are they getting their information today?  From a video game?  From a link on a tweet?   From their phone?  From a coupon on their phone automatically sent to them by an RFID/GPS system while they are standing next to your product in the grocery store?

To make it even more complicated, a customer’s source of information may be constantly shifting.  Think of the implications if you choose incorrectly or your competitor moves into an emerging platform more rapidly. Kind of makes you want to go back to newspapers, huh? That’s why you need to develop a presence that can adapt and adjust to wherever consumer attention drags you. It will be fascinating to watch the big brands create a unified and compelling presence across so many platforms.

Pervasiveness

Let’s take a lesson from Twitter to illustrate this key concept. For years, Twitter hasn’t focused on making money. It has focused on DOMINATING  and pervading a consumer space. Why? They know that consumers will have the bandwidth for just one micro-blogging site. Once they devote their emotional equity to one platform it will be extremely difficult to get them to switch. Perhaps impossible. And that’s what Twitter is counting on.

So it might be easy to get folks to taste a new brand of cookie or soft drink, but it will be much more difficult to get them to switch to an unfamiliar communication or marketing channel.  Brand marketers jockeying for precious consumer online attention will have to develop ideas and entertainment concepts that are pervasive and with high emotional switching costs.  Not cheap. Not easy.

Publishing

Five years ago, would you consider a shoe company to be a significant publisher?  Yet Zappos has more than a dozen blogs. I contend the biggest challenge to any marketer may be the publishing of consistently engaging, meaningful content. And increasingly that means cutting through the clutter with entertaining content like puzzles, games, contests and videos. The implications of sustaining an organization’s publishing presence is daunting!

So what’s your take on this?  How are you adjusting to the new P’s?  How are you integrating them with the old ones?

I’d like to start with an excerpt from a a recent Gregg Morris post. This is an email from one of his associates, expressing frustration at an inability to convince small businesses to engage in social media marketing:

Social networking is making zero inroads into any of the businesses (SMBs) we have visited and interest in “mining” those networks is similarly zero.  It’s not that they are rejected as future possibilities, but rather that SMBs haven’t time for it, since they sense the costs far exceed the benefits … The facts are the facts – SMBs are still the same as they always were: overworked, scratching for dollars, but now fighting even harder for market share. They are competing not just with local competition but also with online, distant suppliers and, of course, big box retailers.

To the point: Joe average – architect, restaurant owner, retail store – are not stupid, nor are they unaware of the need to handle their customers better. All I see … is the same, stupid Social CRM Expert-type of messaging. A bunch of esoteric bullshit skimming the surface of the problem, with no real solution offered. Everywhere I look, they all say the same thing: “You have to communicate with your customer…”, “you need to serve your customer…”, “you need to do this, that or the other…”. Lots of “you needs”, but few “here’s exactly how”

This little rant hit a chord for me because I teach a social media marketing class for small businesses and I constantly hear these same concerns.

There is a business cultural gap that is keeping many SMB’s from working this channel: Typical SMB ”advertising” is a hand-off. All the work is done by an ad agency and/or the advertising sales people.  There is little personal time expenditure and the cost/benefit is usually easily measurable. Not so with social media marketing.  There is more hands-on doing and the results may not be immediate.

When I consult with small businesses, I recognize that for many, the time commitments and demands of maintaining a consistent, effective presence seems overwhelming so I help them cut through the hype and FOCUS.  I encourage them to consider five very practical questions:

1) Do I know enough about social media marketing to make the right decision for my business?  Not knowing the possibilities would be the same disadvantage as operating a business without knowing such a thing as television advertising existed.

2) What is mybusiness strategy and how could a social toolkit align with my key initiatives?

3) Are my customers using the social web?

4) Are my competitors using this channel, and what are the competitive implications if I decide to participate or not?  Could I create advantage by being an early adopter?

5) Do I have the resources, or can I acquire the resources, to conduct limited, focused experiments to see if working through the social web can provide a cost-benefit exceeding traditional advertising?

After my students walk through these questions, they usually conclude a) yes, this is something with a lot of potential and b) there are practical and manageable methods to approach this if I stay committed and focused.

Does this make sense to you?  What is your experience with SMB’s and the social web right now?

{grow} community alert: Pete Mosely, a frequent contributor to {grow} has a new eBook out on promotion fundamentals which is a nice companion piece to this blog article.

Inventory — A customer in France made coated metal plates and, for quality control purposes, had to keep a large volume on hand in a warehouse. This tied up valuable working capital. We had the idea to use this as a rapid-turnaround stockpile. They could sell and ship material out of the warehouse for customer emergencies as a premium service — at a premium price!

People — A local company said they needed my help because “everyone was just sitting around” with their business levels so low. I saw this as under-utilized human capital. How could they put these people to use to connect to customers and discover un-met or under-served needs?  Turn EVERYONE into a sales person?  Study the competition?

Information — A client had developed a weekly email update to keep their salespeople on top of changing market conditions. A survey indicated their customers were hungry for the same type of information. Their email was turned into a premium information service to increase customer satisfaction and loyalty. They leveraged information they already HAD to create a siginificant new customer benefit.

Services — I recently taught a class on recession marketing. The class content is now an asset, part of my “buffalo.” I turned some of the ideas into articles for my website and now, my blog. I promoted this content through online forums and social media. One article had more than 500 downloads in two days. These new contacts were added to my mailing list for further follow-up. The session was videotaped and edited into short topics for my website and YouTube.

How are you using the whole buffalo in your business?

The GE Social Media Team: Gary Sheffer, Jen Walsh, Sean Gannon, Lisa Lanspery, Mike Eisenreich, Megan Parker and Vivek Kemp

At long last, I bring to you my valued {grow} folks, a true B2B social media success story that can really be measured by MONEY.  I believe this is the only one in the world.  ; )  And it is GENIUS!

Best of all, the success comes from one of our very own {grow}-er’s, Nathan Dube aka @DubiousMonk, a frequent comment contributor.

Nathan works in the marketing department of Expert Laser Services of  Southbridge, MA.  The company is a managed print services provider and provides printer/copier sales, service and supplies.  Nathan’s challenge was to increase awareness for his company through social media initiatives.

His idea was to let people release their technology angst by finding the most creative ways to destroy their printer — on video.  The “Destroy Your Printer Video Contest” was promoted through the company’s blog,  Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.  The oddball humor of the contest gave it a great buzz and more – web traffic more than doubled and the company gained more than 100 new inbound links. Recycler magazine did an Internet TV special about the contest as well as an article which was the most-read topics on the site for several weeks.

The submissions can be found here and they are hilarious.  The winning entry involves a backhoe (but I think the dynamite should have won: “We’re approaching the target!”).

Momentum for the contest picked up as people fell in love with the crazy ways people destroyed their printers.  One fan was an employee of nearby Telesian Technologies, who called up Expert Laser Services and asked them to be their new service provider.

That’s right.  New business. Money in the bank from a social media victory.

Nathan said getting a new customer was just icing on the cake. “The focus of the contest  was not ‘let’s get customers’,” he said. ” The focus was to drive more traffic to the website, build inbound links, and create good content.  The fact that we landed a new service and repair customer was not our goal, but it happened.”

And to make a happy ending even happier, the winner of the contest, Cottage Revolution of Wales, MA, donated their winning toner cartridges to Catholic Charities.

• Did this lady just win the lottery?  Or did she get goosed or something?
• Why was she compelled to rise out of her chair and stare straight at me and laugh?  It’s unnerving.
• There is a very small coffee cup behind her. Why is it so small?  Is it a demi-tasse?  Is it a cup for sake?  Is she caffeine-intolerant?  I just want to hug her and say, “Drink a nice BIG cup of coffee.  This is America, honey. Our cups hold a quart.  Here, have mine.”
• It looks like she’s knitting.  But what is it?  She’s wrapped it around her neck somehow.  Lady, that could be dangerous.  Put down the sharp objects and slowly unwrap that that thing from around your neck.  And what is that on your breath?  SAKE?  We’ve notified the authorities.

Welcome to the world’s first hyper-interactive, cross-country, super-charged blog.

My subject today will serve as a case study to be discussed during a Twitter chat (#SM4B) hosted by Steve Farnsworth (@TheRealPRMan) Wednesday, Oct. 7, at noon Eastern time.  I will be his guest. Then on Thursday, Steve will contribute his own perspective in a guest post on {grow}.  I hope you enjoy this post and take advantage of the learning opportunity from every angle.  

______________________________________________

 Here we go again with another lawsuit based on a Facebook and Twitter comment.  And this time it happened right under my nose.

The Pizza Kitchen is a popular landmark in my neighborhood. They have funky Elvis stuff on the walls (It is Tennessee, you know!).  I’m not a frequent visitor but I did get a free meal once when their lasagna came out too soupy.

But that’s beside the point.  They just got slapped with a $2 mm libel lawsuit over comments made on Facebook and Twitter.  Apparently they retained marketing firm Low and Tritt to help them with advertising and promotions in a tough economy.  Business reportedly continued to go down and the restaurant’s owner, Travis Redmon, let the firm go.   A disagreement about fees and licensing rights ensued.

An article in the local paper reported what happened next:

According to the suit, Redmon defamed the marketing firm in two Aug. 17 Facebook entries that said, “Do not EVER use Lowandtritt mktg. firm!” and “CROOKS! – Stolen email list, and have tried to pressure me by threat of lawsuit to sign a ‘license agreement’ to use their mktg materials.”

The following day on Twitter Redmon posted, “Lowentritt mktg firm has done it again…” and “Can you believe that they have not only stolen my email list, but have now hacked Pizza Kitchen’s facebook page taking it offline?”

The posts were published to more than 300 Facebook friends of The Pizza Kitchen and 247 followers on Twitter, according to the suit.

I tried to find the latest legal opinions on libel and Twitter and, as they say in Australia, it’s a dog’s breakfast … a mess.  You could successfully argue both sides and it may take one of these things going to trial to determine a precedent.

However, the legal aspects of the pizza lawsuit seem secondary to the fundamental business issues at hand.

First, is it ever really a good idea to sue your customer?  Pizza Kitchen has one store and 247 followers on Twitter.  Even if the owner was really, really difficult, you just … don’t … sue … customers over something liks this.   Do you??

Low and Tritt’s website boldly claims that their company “foundation” is:  Client First, Always.  Hmmm. 

OK, let’s put aside the messy “client first” thing for a minute.  What would they be trying to prove with a lawsuit like this?  Have they not been reading the papers?  This sort of legal action is so 2008.  This is a recipe for PR disaster.

There was a similar infamous case that went viral in July, as reported by the Chicago Tribune:

A Chicago corporate landlord set the Internet world abuzz by suing a former resident for a seemingly offhand remark on Twitter about her “moldy” apartment.

The libel suit by Horizon Group Management alleged that Amanda Bonnen “maliciously and wrongfully published the false and defamatory tweet, thereby allowing the tweet to be spread throughout the world.”

But Bonnen had only about 20 Twitter followers at the time of her allegedly libelous tweet. By the time the news of the legal fight spread Tuesday around the Web, however, “Horizon Realty” hit as high as No. 3 on Twitter’s list of trending topics and made the front page of Digg.com in which users rate the top news of the day.

One prominent lawyer said that the landlord was “inviting a PR nightmare” and “foolhardy” but the landlord is still pursuing the case.

Which brings me to point two.  These days, “word of mouth” does not take place at the water cooler.  This is an era where everybody has a voice, everybody has a global public platform.  A dissatisfied customer is a terrorist.  And Low and Tritt … seems to be in trouble.

How did the reporter find out about the lawsuit?  Probably from somebody who sympathizes with the restaurant.  So, now it’s in the newspaper.  And on TV.  Both online versions have comment sections providing more fuel to the public perception that Goliath is bullying David. As of this writing, there were 81 comments with stabs such as:

“They should change their name to low and trite.”

“Low & Tritt has conducted a fantastic gonzo marketing campaign advertising what the firm stands for. I wonder if they can sue themselves for stupidity? I’m sure the current clients splashed all over their web site are proud to be associated with such a professional organization.”

“I guess if you can’t make money by providing a quality service to your customers… then you can just hire a snake lawyer, and sue the customers that you FAILED for million$$$$.”

It gets worse. I didn’t hear about this from a newspaper.  I saw a link to the article on Twitter and so did hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others.  Now the news about Low and Tritt is going viral. 

Although crowd reaction might go with the pizza baker, the lawyer for Low and Tritt claims in an interview that anybody with an audience had better be careful:

“The claim is that the posting on the Twitter page that was not accurate about the marketing company,” says Pamela Reeves. Reeves is partner of Reeves, Herbert & Murrian P.A., the office representing Low and Tritt in the case.

“It opens up lots of opportunities for defamation,” she says. Defamation – where a false comment damages the reputation of an individual or business – depends on the comment being untrue.

“If the statements that are made are accurate statements, you’re not defamed. It’s simply making an observation that’s true,” says Reeves. “Obviously our clients feel that that’s not the situation here.”

“Remember you always have the possibility of causing someone serious harm when you make those statements on the web,” says Reeves. “Unless you know you’re fully protecting yourself, you should be careful what you say.”

The Pizza Kitchen is caught in a maelstrom of legal uncertainty but has the benefit of public sentiment. Low and Tritt probably didn’t make the wisest business or PR move but might have the law on their side. Does that matter if their reputation is ruined?

So I hope you can all join Steve Farnsworth and I for the Twitter chat on Wednesday and then tune in for Steve’s blog on Thursday. In the mean time, what are your thoughts on this case?

Illustration: Chicago Decider

This is going to be one sweet blog.  It’s about donuts and ice cream.  What’s not to like?

Am I out of touch or does the following statement also strike you as deep-fried, chocolate-covered hooey? 

“Customers will decide what our brand is about. And there is nothing we can do about it.  And that is a very liberating thing. In the end, you can’t control it. And that’s the beauty of social media.  And that means marketers have to let go – a little.”

This is a comment made by Dunkin’ Donuts Brand Marketing Officer Frances Allen during last week’s OMMA conference in NYC.*

I had a visceral reaction to this statement.  It hits all the popular social media buzzwords about the power of consumers and letting go of the conversation … but let’s not sugar-coat anything (yes, that was intentional) — this  just strikes me as so wrong.

I don’t know France Allen and I’m not that familiar with the history of DD, but I do know quite a bit about Ben & Jerry’s (a U.S. premium ice cream brand) because I teach a case about the company in one of my classes.  Seems like this is a similar, sweet, occasion-based treat, so for argument’s sake, let’s lump the two companies in the same product category. 

There are so many ice cream brands on the grocery aisle, it can make your head spin.  But B&J stands out like no other brand by promoting three core values:

1)    Fun. Everything about B&J is playful: the names of the flavors, the packaging, the website, their crazy contests.

2)    Quality. It’s an expensive treat and B&J are fanatic about their ingredients and how they’re blended. One famous R&D innovation was developing the first real marshmallow stripes in an ice cream.

3)    Social responsibility. The founders of the company set out to show that you could create a company that can also take care of people and the planet.

The B&J marketing folks go to extreme measures to develop and market products that enhance this precious brand image.  And they have done a superb job, creating a powerful brand equity for the B&J name.

Who decided these three brand pillars – what the brand is about?  Consumers?  Perhaps indirectly, but no, a marketing team is responsible for the brand vision. No focus group handed it to them on a silver platter.

Are consumers in charge of the brand image?   No again.  While every nuance of their product offering is tested exhauastively, talented marketing professionals drive the image through brilliant products, strategies and advertising.

Have the marketers “let go” of their brand since the advent of social media?  I honestly don’t think anything has changed at all.  Sure, there are new tools to “listen” and “engage,” but marketers have ALWAYS listened and engaged. This is just a new way to do it.  I think it’s pretty arrogant of any marketer to assume they had control of a consumer conversation in the first place.  

So how do you reconcile the Dunkin’ Donut position with my views of social media’s impact on traditional marketing?  Or can you?  Are we flunkin’ Dunkin Donuts?

Disclosure:  I would choose a pint of Ben & Jerry’s Cinnamon Bun Ice Cream over two dozen Dunkin Donuts any day.

*This comment was featured in a blog by Nitin Gupta, a regular contributor to the {grow} community.  I highly recommend his blog ‘Digital Marketing Today.” 

This might be the strangest marketing article you read in awhile but I’d like you to question  conventional wisdom about listening to your customers.  Sometimes, it’s simply best to ignore them.

One of the hottest buzzwords is “socialistic marketing” implying that social media enables you to place the brand power in the hands of the people.  I don’t think the world is ready for that quite yet.  Here’s why:

Customers don’t know what they want.  One of the most disturbing lines of commentary I see these days is the reliance people are putting on social media tools for new product development.  SM is a revolutionary “listening” device, but if you rely on it for development ideas, you’ll have a steady flow of incremental improvements based on customer complaints but it’s unlikely you’ll find the next big blockbuster.  That’s because consumers typically don’t know what they want it until they see it.  As the chairman of Sony famously said, they never would have invented the Walkman if they had asked customers what they wanted.

Big mouths dominate.  One of the biggest challenges with focus groups is that the most dominant participant tends to drown out the majority.  Their opinion overwhelms the true sentiment of the sample because they command most of the air time. Social media is like a focus group on steroids. It’s all about finding a way to get attention.  Are the people shouting the loudest on social media really the ones who represent your target market?  When you tune in to the social media cacaphony, are you hearing the signal or the noise?

They’re learning to play the game.  If somebody discovers that complaining means they can get attention, or better yet, a free product, a trickle of product complaints can turn into a tsunami, whether there is a real problem or not.  One company president recently told me they simply don’t address most consumer complaints any more because the cost of customer service became so high — they couldn’t afford to determine what’s real and what’s a scam.  Is that smart business?  I guess if it’s the only way they can afford to keep operating, it is.

Obviously today’s headline is a bit sensational — of course you need to embrace and cherish your customers.  I just want you to think twice before embracing this notion of marketing socialism and putting TOO MUCH power in the hands of consumers.  Agree?  Disagree?

Illustration: www.zazzle.com