Marketing By Consumers: Jericho Bloggers

Consumer marketing, better known as viral marketing, continues to be a hit-or-miss method of increasing brand awareness that some marketers and advertisers only dream about. Some take the form of funny videos (Justin Timberlake on Saturday Night Live comes to mind) whereas others take the form of something else all together (like Facebook). Most, of course, never go anywhere or get off the ground.

To gain a better understanding of consumer marketing, I decided to go to the source. While there are forums, Web sites, e-newsletters, and several other fan-generated promotional efforts associated with Jericho, the television show resurrected by CBS after one of the most convincing and well-publicized cancellation protests in history, bloggers tend to be on the front lines.

So I asked five dedicated and prolific Jericho bloggers to answer a few questions this week. Three of them answered in time to be included today: Lisa Coultrup (Jericho On CBS); Teresa Rothaar (Jericho Bulletin); and Jane Sweat (Jericho Monster, among others).

Interestingly enough, while these three bloggers might seem to dominate Jericho content online, none of them had much social media experience beyond personal projects (whether MySpace or Live Journal) prior to the show cancellation. In a few short months (and many, many hours), they’ve emerged as semi-experts in social networking and online message proliferation.

“I had just begun a WordPress blog called ‘Trippin’ about a month before Jericho began and then started another WordPress blog for Jericho in October,” says Coultrup. “So, I’d gotten my feet wet in both fields [before the cancellation]. One thing I have learned is that social behavior is vastly different than it is in real life. There are more behavioral rules.”

Learning the sometimes complex behavioral rules online isn’t the only challenge. While fans are partly responsible for the buzz they generate, they often operate without any support network whatsoever. They have no little or no access to CBS or the producers of the show and sometimes feel like they have to fight for content ideas and information that will eventually benefit the network.

“People don’t want to read the same darn things on multiple sites so I had to make a choice to make the blog multifunctional or have it go dormant,” explains Rothaar. “So I decided to branch out and talk about things that have nothing to do with "Jericho," like the housing meltdown.”

Jane Sweat has made some inroads into the interview arena to provide new content, but it requires significant effort on her part. She often scours the Web looking for people off the beaten path. And, on occasion, she manages to capture a blogger (with a blog not specific to the show), cast member, or member of the production crew.

“There is a real lack of communication with the network,” says Sweat. “I know a network can't communicate with individual fans, but I think they could find a way to work with us better, having fans submit artwork, fan fiction, blog posts, etc. to highlight their efforts and use it for promotional purposes.”

In the greater context of consumer marketing, CBS is not the only one that might take notice. If there is something to be learned from spontaneous consumer marketing it is that once the company begins to benefit, there exists a need to follow through. Without support, consumers might become frustrated with challenges unique to being a consumer marketer.

All three said if they were calling the shots at CBS, they would improve the communication and even create a partnership between the marketing arm of the show and the fans that are promoting it. All of them suggested CBS could enhance its own Jericho marketing efforts, allowing them to take on a supported ancillary role. At the same time, they prescribe more content to write about in the form of CBS-sponsored contests, giveaways, blogger cast member interviews, promotional material, story ideas, and photos. All of which, they say, would help them interact with the fans.

Along with this, CBS might consider working its non-paid marketing arm to help define suitable measures. Other than tracking traffic and comment counts, all of them seem unsure of what to measure (that’s okay … most companies don’t know what to measure online either).

While some might argue companies cannot necessarily invest in every blogger who takes an interest in a product or show; I might offer up it is often the companies that encourage the initial efforts. In the case of Jericho, CBS has all but placed the burden of making the show successful onto the fans. (To balance this a bit, part of the equation might be speed to market. CBS has BTR host Shaun O'Mac reporting from Jerichon in Kansas and the Production Blog demonstrates some of the better insider work, among other things.)

Of course, none of this meant to suggest these three bloggers are unappreciative of the recognition they have received. All three were thrilled that CBS linked to their blogs at Jericho Fan Central. Otherwise, however, most the recognition, they say, has come from other fans.

But that’s all right. None of them began writing about Jericho to receive individual recognition. In fact, if there is one constant among bloggers and other fans who promote the show, it seems obvious why they originally lent their support: they love the program enough to do whatever it takes to ensure its success.

Consumer marketing. While many companies want to benefit from it, very few seem to know what to do with it once they actually get it. Here’s one idea: ask the fans and then deliver. Heck, we’ve even been doing that here for some time now.

Making Changes: NBCB

Since April 2005, our company has hosted and administered the National Business Community Blog, which is a national news feed that focuses on businesses doing good.

Today, we gave the blog the first phase of a long overdo face lift. More work needs to be done (and we have yet to add every state), but it's a step in the right direction. Everyday, we publish one example of best business giving practices with the hope to inspire more companies to engage in community service.

In other words, we're always looking for best business giving practices from small businesses and large corporations across the nation. We'd be more than welcome to consider your business giving news; just send a release to the e-mail identified on the site.

In addition to sharing business giving ideas, the blog also benefits Nevada Volunteers (The Nevada Commission for National & Community Service), a state commission that administers AmeriCorps programs and generally works to increase volunteerism in our state.

I've been privileged to serve as appointed state commissioner for several years now. You can learn about the latest commission news here, including the recent announcement to name Nevada First Lady Dawn Gibbons honorary chairwoman.

There are other state and national non-profit organizations as well. And that doesn't count more than 300 acts of business kindness we're collected on the site. Drop by some time and let us know if you think we're moving one of our other blogs in the right direction.

Advertising Misstep: MoveOn

The best advertising tends to be the perfect balance of art and science. You can usually spot which campaigns lean too far one way or another by the quality of the message, not the production.

Too much science and the message becomes an exercise in bullet points. Too much art and the ad will become the subject of debate rather than the issue.

MoveOn might know what I’m talking about. For all their clever (not really) shock value in attempting to denounce Gen. David Petraeus, they have only succeeded in shifting the debate from whether or not we need to be in Iraq to whether or not their message is fair and their organization credible. Enough so, even Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) had to put the usual polarized politics aside.

"The ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned,” Reid said in a letter. “No matter whether any senator supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and appreciation of Gen. Petraeus' long and distinguished record of service to our country."

As brands are fragile things; not all publicity is good publicity.

Relatively few people can look at the MoveOn ad like Jane Hamsher did in her article in The Huffington Post: “To join with the right and start firing arrows into their backs is both destructive from a movement perspective and displays tremendous naiveté about what it's going to take to end this war.”

She does, and in doing so, demonstrates the true weakness of the MoveOn ad: in or out, black or white, for us or against us. Stand by your “progressive fighters” at all costs. Tow the line. Or, in other words, let’s make a case for polarization.

Around almost every corner, polarization remains a front runner in creating miscommunication. In our country, it continues to distract from solutions because it creates a political environment of distrust and suspicion while offering public spectacle that can be likened to high school debate teams. One team picks “pro” and other team picks “con” (nowadays both sides generally pick “pro” and change the noun).

From a communication standpoint, only one Democratic team seems to have made the mistake of choosing sides as outlined by MoveOn. Hillary Clinton embraced the message as a blunt speaking point for the following day, opening it up for Rudy Giuliani’s team to ask a pointed question: “Who should America listen to … A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org.”

This copy line above is part of a rebuttal advertisement that Giuliani’s team wants to raise money for in order to rebut MoveOn and Clinton. You can see the ad by clicking the copy line on a fundraising page here. It’s not the best ad in terms of political copywriting, but it gets the job done.

Regardless of the issue, the communication lesson is objective: although there are some exceptions, the best messages are those that focus less on polarizing the messengers and more on the issues being discussed. By shifting the message off our presence in Iraq and onto the credibility of someone who was recognized as one of America’s 25 best leaders by U.S. News and World Report, MoveOn buried its anti-war message, made the issue about them, forced would-be allies to distance themselves, and drew at least one candidate into controversy.

If we apply this study to our Fragile Brand Theory, it becomes even clearer where MoveOn went wrong. Rather than stick to the issues, they asked the country to denounce a four-star general or denounce a political action group. The law of gravity, as it applies to our brand theory, suggests that when two brands go head to head (as opposed to point for point), then the one with its collective impressions closest to the middle has more pull and will prevail.

Clinton’s team seems to have missed it. Giuliani’s team seems intent on letting them know it.

Resurrecting Porcupines: New Balance

With so many restrictions being floated around about social media, including who can blog and under what conditions and with what support, is it any wonder some spokes figures are making a comeback in social media? They are more manageable than CEOs, less accountable, and in some cases (but not all cases) are fun and entertaining.

Originally I was going to write about a spokes figure we helped develop, but then I came across JD. JD is a porcupine who gets a second lease on life after a driver resurrects him using the positive energy found in New Balance shoes.

An Ontario native living in Massachusetts, JD’s MySpace page has all the vitals, including the :30 second back story, his own song, and about 163 friends. If that and his “chipper” attitude aren’t enough to make you feel good, pop over to the interactive Web site, play around with the signage, and enter the enter the balloon-popping contest to win a Jeep, sports equipment, and cash.

JD and the campaign is the brainchild of Almighty that aims at influencing culture. You can find out more about the creators at Ad-titude.com. Like many very creative ideas in advertising, we’re not sure if the ads translated into shoe sales.

That question will best be answered if JD has three lives instead of two. New Balance has named five finalists in an ad agency search that includes Arnold, BBDO, BBH, Cramer-Krasselt, and Element 79 to oversee the $15-20 million ad budget of New Balance. The Almighty could easily retain JD’s piece ... or not.

For the sake of feel good social media, we hope JD survives — even if one of the new shops creates a campaign that aims to bring us back to reality. The concept of the spots, by the way, is linked to NB Zip’s “high performance cushioning technology.” Yeah, okay, sure, the defibrillator shoe soles idea was a bit of a stretch in terms of connecting the dots, but we still like many of the campaign elements that came out of that idea.

Spotting Convergence: Procter & Gamble

When I began writing that company-driven digital media was an emerging trend to watch with tangible income marketing potential, some people weren’t too keen on the idea.

Two days ago, Brian Steinberg with Advertising Age reported that Procter & Gamble (P&G) is in the early stages of producing a pilot focused on sketch comedy and the travails of the comics who devise it, which it hopes can become a primetime reality series for broadcast or cable. While this doesn’t connect all the dots between Internet-based digital media programming and traditional broadcast television, it does raise interesting questions around the concept well beyond the Cavemen.

"If it's not entertaining, then it's not going to engage, and if it doesn't, then it's a failure," said Peter Tortorici, president of WPP Group's Group M Entertainment. "Consumers aren't looking to be entertained by brands. They are looking to be entertained by characters and stories."

Tortorici is right. Under the existing model, advertisers rely on networks to develop and nurture entertaining shows to capture an audience. Then, assuming the measures are right, they buy time around those shows. However, most people agree that the old model is broken.

"The market is so fragmented, and because you have DVRs out there, we know that people are fast-forwarding through the commercials,” contributed Pat Gentile, head of P&G Productions, to the article. “If you can create something that is interesting and that resonates with the consumer, for Procter & Gamble, that's a pretty big deal."

It is a very big deal. P&G is among the biggest spenders on network television despite steadily shifting away from television advertising since 2005. Considering P&G currently commands an advertising budget of $6.7 billion, producing its own pilot it seems like a modest investment.

Some might say it’s almost a necessity. Even Fortune’s Geoff Colvin framed up his question to P&G’s James Stengel this way: Fortune’s Geoff Colvin: “Now that mass media is losing its dominance, what's the new model?”

“It's about understanding these consumers in a complete way. Our research has changed a lot. We do much more immersion research, much more anthropological research. We really try to get at what we can do through our brands to make a difference in people's lives,” Stengel said.

Although P&G is developing a pilot for broadcast or cable this time, we would not be surprised to see even more immersive experimentation in digital media, which provides better tracking through analytics and an ability to nurture niche markets. (We can think of hundreds of programs that P&G could develop to engage audiences on the Internet.) As Steinberg pointed out in his well-written article, P&G already has precedents.

Hmmm … suddenly, company-produced programs doesn’t seem so silly anymore. And while I am not suggesting that company-produced programming will or should completely replace broadcast penetration, it does make a lot of sense to consider programming as a viable part of the marketing mix.

Thinning The Workforce: Those People

With increasing fervor, some bloggers are thinning America’s workforce into desirables and undesirables. Who’s undesirable?

Those people, of course.

“Those people” are people with kids, according to Penelope Trunk. When she shared ten tips on how to start a business, she wrote “In general, when I have started companies, I tried not to hire people with kids because they are less able to jump for investors, more torn between where their head and heart are at any given time, and anyway, today’s parents generally do not work insanely long hours.”

She defends her statement here, a contrast that doesn’t appear on her own blog. But “those people” are not only people with kids. Fat women have to go too.

“One thing I learned is that fat women don't have a lot of empathy and defendants usually try to strike those jurors,” Trunk said as quoted by David Maister, who defended her statement by surmising she was not advocating anything (Maister, she advocates all the time) before pointing out the obvious.

Some companies are hiring people based on looks, which means “those people” may as well include anyone who is less attractive. Playing the appearance game isn’t always as easy as that. Stephanie Bivona wrote about a talk show conversation she heard on the radio, where one caller “even said she ‘uglied’ herself, just so she could be taken seriously.”

So, as crazy as it sounds, let’s toss the “overly attractive people” into the mix of “those people” too. And, based on the comments alone in another Trunk post, men, because they cannot handle assertive women as several Trunk readers pointed out. Especially those who choose to stay at home. And women. And Hispanic people. And Black people. And White people. And conservatives. And liberals. And reglious people. And atheists. And those of differing sexual orientation. And Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby Boomers.

Those people.

Sometimes I wonder — as each group based on race, gender, lifestyle preference, and appearance all try to outdo one another as the bigger victim — if we’ve learned anything.

In the 1930s and 40s, Nazis, originally under the banner of being discriminated against, also armed themselves with statistical information. It’s not hard to do. “Those people” also veiled their words as simple observations and personal experiences like Trunk and now Maureen Sharib, who wrote: “Speaking as one small voice, I can tell you this, I have run a company and I have experienced the mind sets of those with kids and those without.”

To all of it, I say gumballs. Give someone a statistical study and they can vilify or victimize any group you want to pool together, even if it is based on something as ridiculous as blood type.

Discrimination in our country not only exists, but it is much more pervasive than we like to admit. Anymore, the truth is that “those people,” the victims, have become each and every one of us.

If we are ever going to break away from this apparent need to label each other, it will take a general willingness for individuals to make the decision not to discriminate based upon whatever divisive characteristics people dream up. As Geoff Livingston said in an unrelated but pointed post, maybe we all need to lighten up.

Not just in this country. Americans aren’t alone in labeling people. It is a Korean problem, an Australian problem, and a Nigerian problem. It is a human problem.

(Note: Orignally, every label and descriptor was linked to article published by major media outlets, but those articles are all gone now. Maybe it lessons the points not to have those illustrative links. Maybe not. I hope not because the point is we're all people.)