Counting Crowds: Circulation Only Matters Sometimes

According to Brandweek, print is still losing its place as a viable business. National magazine spending fell 19.3 percent. Newspaper advertising fell 13.7 percent. But marketers who made those cuts didn't stop spending. Marketers migrated to digital media.

Still, the industry-wide advertisers only tell part of the story. Re/Max cut its print spending by 53 percent. Hertz Car Rental slashed 58 percent. State Farm dumped 55 percent of its print budget. Add to that Unilever's recent decision to double spending on digital marketing this year.

"I think you need to fish where the fish are," said Keith Weed, CMO for Unilever during a question-and-answer session with WPP Chief Executive Martin Sorrell. "So I've made it fairly clear that I'm driving Unilever to be at the leading edge of digital marketing."

According to an article by AdvertisingAge, Unilever is hardly alone. P&G doubled its measured U.S. Internet spending last year to $100 million.

The Case Against Migration.

Of course, not everyone is bullish on digital. Audrey Siegel, president at media agency TargetCast, who was quoted in the aforementioned Brandweek article, says dollar cuts aren't necessarily a shift from print to digital. She says print still commands the same amount of market share.

“In regard to digital spending, there’s no reliable source in tracking it, so when we talk about print dollars migrating, it’s anecdotal,” she said. “Digital will continue to grow but not necessarily just at the expense of print. It can just as easily be a case of broadcast dollars shifting into digital.”

Siegel seems to be be right and wrong. On one hand, print's hold over the same percentage of advertising spending is true. But on the other hand, it's not true for the reasons cited. Digital adverting has yet to make up ground as a viably priced medium. Specifically, digital media is still the cheaper buy while print, despite seeing publishing budgets shrink, are hanging on to higher ad rates.

The group trying to change all that isn't necessarily on the print publishing side. On the contrary, the Interactive Advertising Bureau is attempting to set some sort of standard that will place digital on equal footing. According to MediaWeek, the same problem remains. Everyone wants to plant "eyeball measurement" into the equation.

"Newspapers and magazines are particularly frustrated in their attempts to make up for steep print revenue losses with Web dollars and feel their high-quality content should command higher CPMs online," writes Lucia Moses. "Local newspapers have it tough because panel-based measurement isn’t well suited to local sites, resulting in erratic results."

One example Moses cites comes from Scripps. Scripps generates $500 annually per print reader but only $75 per online visitor. So the problem for many print publishers, to follow the marketing dollars online, is that "circulation" is up but the "value" of that circulation is down.

Solutions, solutions everywhere, and not even one to measure.

We see it every day. Many clients, even a few of our clients, are sometimes conflicted between the number of eyeballs versus engagement. It's a well-reasoned disconnect. Everything they have known until about five years ago suggests playing the numbers beats consumer concern. Every media salesperson on the planet has spoon fed them viewers, listeners, and readers as the fundamental measure of success. Public relations practitioners are guilty too, using the promise of reaching high circulation print pubs as their bread and butter has been the message they've carried forth for years.

The reality they are coming to terms with now is that "eyeball" rates do not necessarily equal conversation rates because two-way communication is a much different affair. Consider yesterday's research finding from Omni Hotels & Resorts as an example.

Seventy percent of those who do connect via Twitter and Facebook said that they share positive hotel experiences and incentives such as room upgrades. Sixty-two percent said they are more likely share positive experiences over negative ones.

So, in terms of "eyeballs," counting "followers" isn't the only answer. In some cases, ten followers might provide an expanded reach of 150,000 more people, assuming they share the content, page, incentive or offering. Add in their followers, and the potential reach could outpace some very respectable publications. However, not all of those potential eyeballs will ever equal conversions.

Case in point. One of our colleagues emailed us yesterday, excited by a traffic spike. When we asked them to attribute their spike, they said it became a controversial hot topic on a social network, meaning people disagreed whether the advice was wise or whether it was an advertisement.

"So, of all those people who flocked to the site to offer up their opinion," I queried. "How many will ever become customers?"

Hardly any. Contrary, the one follower who shared his post with ten friends within proximity to his business — those people, especially if they make plans together — are very likely to become customers. The irony, however, is that marketers have been trained to devalue the qualitative for the quantitative for their entire careers and it's just not true.

That's right. That video with one million views might be worthless. The one with ten views, depending on the value of the customer, might be worth $1 million. And the only way to approach media buys right now is to know the difference and find the middle. But since each middle might be different, there is no "formula" as much as there is an equation that leaves many publishers out of the loop.

Targeting Business Travelers: How Social Is Mobile?

A new survey from Omni Hotels & Resorts found that business travelers ranked adjusting travel plans, making dinner reservations, and hotel check-ins among the applications they use most often during trips. Other activities, such as checking the latest sports scores and looking for the nearest coffee spot, also rated very high.

But what about social? While younger business travelers, ages 25 to 34, update Facebook to keep up with and connect with friends and family (65 percent), the greater demographic tends to be more private, tapping mobile applications for conveniences rather than connections while traveling.

Traveling With Conveniences

• 61 percent say that they surf the Web during travel.
• 49 percent of business travelers would like to pay hotel bills online.
• 48 percent said they they would like to order hotel and outside services.
• 34 percent said they use Skype or other chat services to connect with family.

Traveling With Connections

• 40 percent of business travelers check social networks using hotel WiFi.
• 45 percent of business travelers said they use Twitter during business trips.
• 34 percent of business travelers said they "boast" about trips on Facebook.
• Only 11 percent update frequently during their the entire trip.

Interestingly enough, 70 percent of those who do connect via Twitter and Facebook said that they share positive hotel experiences and incentives such as room upgrades. Sixty-two percent said they are more likely share positive experiences over negative ones.

One specific service mobile users are hoping hotels add is the ability to request hotel car service from the airport. But business travelers are trending toward wanting to make travel easier by accessing every service — ranging from room service to booking lunch — via their mobile phones. In general, mobile tends to be used more for such personal conveniences than personal connections. The survey skewed toward business travelers who stayed in hotels with rates at least $150 per night.

Omni Hotels & Resorts does employ social media incentives designed to encourage consumer promotions. Currently, the hotel chain is offering a 30 percent discount on cocktails to those who tweet about their stay at the hotel. Other incentives include a variety of early adoptive ideas, including 25 percent off a Snapfish photobook.

Asking Questions: Fresh Content Project

It's no surprise to me that the best solutions often come from the people who ask the right questions, whether or not they are prepared to answer them. This week's fresh picks in review ask some killer questions, and some of them provide answers.

Even if your content can be translated, will your audience understand you? Can you really manage communication or are you better off managing the information (assuming you're not going to lie about it)? Does dissent strengthen understanding of a topic or simply undermine relationships? Can someone really be expected to do it all in social media (unless all they do is social media)? And how has the Internet changed our profession for the better, especially among those who never really knew any other way?

All of them are amazing for consideration, some worth much more depth than I afford them here. See for yourself.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of June 14

• Lost In Translation.
Tom Fishburne shares his first hand account of feeling lost in translation. It's a marvelous story that serves up a healthy reminder that many terms do not translate, even those that are somehow exempt from being classified as jargon or industry speak. As one of his examples, Fishburne retells how disruptive innovation might mean something to you or me. But to the audience he was speaking to, he might as well have told them to kill their existing businesses. Yes, sometimes presenters are charged with covering introductions into subjects they never intended to cover.

• A Pool Approach to Coverage.
"Should we believe that BP's decision to limit media access or withhold vital information was made for fear of running afoul of those who govern the New York or London Stock Exchanges?" asked Peter Himler before providing five bullet points on how BP could have effectively used social media to manage the information related to the spill as opposed to attempting to manage the communication related to the spill. You can't get much clearer than his five ideas, all of which would prove better than what they are attempting to do.

• Social Media Examiner Defends Their Own Inaccurate Content.
Sometimes private discourse is only a foreshadow to public discourse. The most common kind occurs when one blogger might casually mention to another blogger that they disagree. But when they disagree in private, there are no benefactors. Adam Singer knows this, and benefits us all in recapping the discussion between himself and the folks at Social Media Examiner. Interestingly enough, I know something about the subject. Singer is right, based in part on the same confusion caused by this study.

• If Your Content Is Your Concerto ...
While it's always distracting to see images spill into the side bar, Peter Winick's visual misstep is par for the post. There are dozens of people who are proponents that social media is a one-man show, with the executive taking center stage and somehow managing the company. Not so fast. Maybe there is a balance to be struck because even great composers lead orchestras as opposed to playing every instrument. The solution is as simple as knowing what you are good at and sticking with it. Sure, the composer can dazzle everyone with the surprise solo set now and again, but daily it doesn't make sense.

• The Internet Wasn't Around Then.
Frequent fresh pick Valeria Maltoni shares some insights about how she experiments with her own blog, but places an emphasis on the people who read it. But where the fresh pick content really kicks in is in the contrast of how things once were and how they are today. Real time communication provides immediate feedback, for better or worse, from a much larger pool of professionals with practical skill sets. The benefits are only tempered at times when it becomes impossible to know everyone who is paying attention.

Touching Consumers: The Space Bringing Us Closer Might Keep Us Apart

Researchers at MIT Sloan School of Management seem to have found evidence related to something that used to be second nature to advertisers. Touch matters, right down to the details of a business card.

The paper choice, cut, weight: they all matter. Flimsy cards tend to be taken with a little less enthusiasm. The same holds true with most collateral. I once kept a Cirque du Soleil press kit around for several years, simply because the stock felt much more like silk than paper. My firm's first brochure (when we had brochures) considered touch too. Spot varnish across the cover gave life to near invisible words with a tilt and a texture contrast meant to be felt.

Sure, many advertising professionals still know all this, especially those who work with packaging. But there are an increasing number of creatives who don't consider touch. Why would they? For the most part, collateral is falling out of favor for computers. Maybe there is an unseen impact associated with the shift.

What MIT Discovered About Touch.

Through a series of experiments, Joshua Ackerman, an assistant professor of marketing at MIT Sloan (along with John Bargh, a professor of psychology at Yale University; and Christopher Nocera, a PhD candidate at Harvard University), tested how weight, texture and hardness can unconsciously influence judgments. They suggest that their results have implications for anyone and everyone, ranging from job seekers to marketers.

“What we touch unconsciously influences how we think,” says Ackerman. “In situations where evaluations and decisions really matter, we need to pay attention to our physical surroundings and, in particular, how we engage these surroundings through our sense of touch.”

According to their statement, the researchers suggest that interactions involving touch, from handshakes to cheek kisses, may have critical influences on social interactions. First impressions are especially liable, with control over the entire environment becoming important.

• Heavier clipboards influenced evaluators in choosing job candidates. Judged candidates whose resumes were seen on a heavy clipboard were rated as qualified and more serious about the position.
• Rough puzzle pieces tended to describe a story about social interaction as harsh, when compared to participants handling smooth puzzle pieces.
• Participants holding a hard block while hearing a story about a workplace interaction tended to judge the employee as more rigid when compared those who held a soft blanket.
• Subjects seated in hard chairs while haggling over the price of a car tended to be less willing to negotiate than those who sat in softer and more comfortable chairs.

Electronics May Play A Role In How We Process Information.

While it wasn't part of the study, the clipboard experiment seems particularly applicable to an increasingly tech reliant world. After all, there is a growing reliance on communication where marketers have no control over the environment, which could be influencing online interactions.

Does it make a difference whether the computer is set up in a cubicle, noisy living room, or open office with a window view? Does an expanded keyboard change the perspective of what's being written? Does a mouse feel better than a touch pad? And does ergonomics, which we seldom hear about anymore, change the pace of the interaction?

Who knows? Harsher critics may indeed be sitting at home on uncomfortable chairs in front of old computers. And there may be subtle differences between the communication and correspondence on a Droid vs. an iPhone. For all we know, there might even be an unseen element that will change the way people feel about the iPhone 4 vs. the original titanium-backed models.

The point to consider here might be futile or especially important as we increasingly rely on electronic communication, sacrificing our ability to communicate with touch, texture, and weight. At minimum, thinking about the impact might also be important, at the very least, to gain an understanding of the people sitting at an opposing screen.

Social media, after all, isn't necessarily one-to-many communication. It's often one-to-one communication, played over several hundred times a day. Except, as noted, we have virtually no perspective of where any of us are at any given moment or what unseen influences might be contributing to how we communicate, with the advantage going to those who know how to make the environment disappear and fade away in to the background.

Cleaning Lenses: How To Wipe Away Marketing Woes

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is — infinite.” — William Blake

Many marketing and advertising professionals learn the lesson too late. Most campaign strategies are less than optimal. Sometimes the problem is blamed on outside help when the problem might be internal. Sometimes it is the outside help. And sometimes, even when sales are setting records, dominant brands have to start all over.

Why does it happen? It happens because perception plays a powerful role in the decision making process. And perception, despite its emphasis, is usually muddled.

The lesson, not to rely on perception, recently came up in a new client meeting. When one of the agencies we work with asked where the majority of the client's marketing dollars went, the client said "the Yellow Pages" without blinking. Discussion followed.

"The Yellow Pages."

"What are the Yellow Pages? Do people still use phone books?"

"Well, we get all of our non-referred business from the Yellow Pages. It works."

"Where else do you advertise?"

"Nowhere else. The Yellow Pages works so well, we invest almost all our marketing dollars there."

"Did you ever consider that most of your non-referred business comes from the Yellow Pages because that is the only place anybody can find you?"

Exactly. Even measurement doesn't mean much unless you're willing to clean the lenses every now and again. Truth be told, I only know of one Yellow Pages success story. There is a local restaurant that published its entire menu inside the archaic directory. It was the least expensive way to get inside every hotel room in Las Vegas, where they deliver. Pretty smart.

"The new limitations are the human ones of perception." — Milton Babbitt

I know a few social media pros who are probably laughing at the very idea of the Yellow Pages. They're like me. I toss the bulky book in favor of drawer space. And all those advertising dollars right along with it.

However, some social media pros nodding in delight might stop chuckling about now because they do the same thing (you know who you are). They declare advertising dead based on the case studies of companies that succeeded on social media alone. But did they really? I can only imagine a mix might have increased sales or helped them reach those sales records faster.

Similarly, reading all those posts that suggest Facebook is better than Twitter (or Twitter is better than Facebook) and Reddit is better than Digg (or Digg is better than Reddit) seem pretty stale to me. It has nothing to with the platforms as much as it has to do with the interests of the online community, the type of information being shared, the type of business establishing a presence, and the proficiency of the person managing the account. Right. They all work. And none of them work.

I recently advised one of the clients we work with direct to include their social media hub address on all of their in-establishment collateral. He blinked.

"I thought we wanted to move away from traditional advertising."

"No, we want to engage your customers," I said. "There they are, right in front of you. Now all we have to do is engage them when they aren't here too."

"Advertising, public relations, and social media is all about perception. But perception has nothing to do with planning it." — Richard Becker.

Did you ever read "Lamb" by Christopher Moore? One of my favorite passages from the book occurs when a Buddhist monk sets two small cups on the table and then proceeds to pour tea until they begin to overflow.

"Hey, doofus!" the protagonist yells. "You're spilling the f**king tea!"

The monk smiled and set the bowl on the table.

"How can I give you tea if your cup is already full?"

Marketing, advertising, public relations, social media, and communication are much like that. It doesn't matter how good you are. If your cup or your client's cup is already full of opinions, then there is nothing I could ever do for you. And no one else either.

Case in point. If you never read Lamb and the tea story still sounds familiar, you might have seen it in the movie 2012. Maybe they robbed Moore outright. Or maybe that's only my perception. For all I know, Moore could have robbed the story too.

Going Somewhere: Why Bhakdi's Web 3.0 Feels Like Web 2.1

Johannes Bhakdi, chef knowledge architect of sophotec.com, published an interesting little book earlier this year that has gone largely unnoticed. There many be some good reasons for that.

The book comes across as a fleshed out PowerPoint. The price point is high. And for all his experience working with companies like McDonald's, MasterCard, Microsoft, Siemens, and Unilever for BBDO and J. Walter Thompson, Bhakdi isn't necessarily established in the social media mix where this book might be appreciated (despite the price point).

Like many creative strategists, he tends to be less visible despite his contributions. And with the exception of Slideshare and perhaps a slow loading Klatcher site, his social media presence doesn't seem especially established. There may even be an irony in that Bhakdi wanted to implement his book using a model in the book, which suggests success provided the marketing is right. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced the marketing is right.

Web 3.0 User-Generated Business • and why everyone becomes a media entrepreneur

But where Bhakdi is at the moment hardly matters within the context of the book. The real question is whether or not there is any real value inside the pages of Web 3.0 - User-Generated Business. There is some.

• The Historic Context. The opening chapters present a quick history of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. They are interesting enough for any newcomers to the Web, with an underlying emphasis on why Web 2.0 was a disaster. Specifically, the average online author earns about 25 cents per hour. Yep. That's a disaster for anyone except hobbyists.

• The Theoretical Sidebar. One of my favorite portions of Web 3.0 has little to do with the Internet. What Bhakdi does very clearly is define the two faces of capitalism against socialism. The latter, he says, tends to organize people in working for the common good but falls short because then people are less inclined to contribute anything useful.

As for capitalism, he discusses how one facet can be destructive and exploitive, driven by ruthless people looking to earn quick profits for as little value as possible. And he stresses that it doesn't have to be that way. Most business people have a more transformative view of capitalism and add positive value on their terms and then change the world with a win-win construct. It's eloquently explained, certainly worth a follow-up post here someday.

• The Visionary Construct. Personally, I was never very fond of the assumption that everybody would become a media entrepreneur, but I've always been comfortable that "anybody" could be. This one word makes a big difference.

Otherwise, I've never understood this ever-present assumption that people want to be media entrepreneurs. From everybody I've spoken with online and off for the last ten years, most people can't be bothered. Sure, some like to create and share content, but most just want to connect with friends, play games, and read the news.

Still, even for that small percentage of people who do want to create content, Bhakdi raises one good point. The current Web 2.0 structure allows platform providers to generate income from content creators who work for free. Ergo, Twitter would be nothing without the flurry of moderately visible pros who put up content and contribute daily.

However, Bhakdi's solution to fix this doesn't necessarily add up as much as he would like. Eventually, he sees Web 3.0 as a place where content is assigned value. In other words, quality content would receive higher compensation over the shareable silliness that tends to drive Web 2.0.

As much as I agree with the idea, I'm not sure it's pragmatic. Intellectual property has variable values that are largely based on perception.

• The Blueprint. Bhakdi does a solid job at outlining a social media content business model in the last chapter. For me, I wish it came much earlier. Reading 150 pages of anecdotal conversation when the real content starts on page 151 is troublesome. It's the primary reason I read so few social media books.

By the time you arrive at the last chapter, Bhakdi outlines Web 3.0 into three parts: outreach (social networks), core media assets (a site or blog), and opportunities for monetization (Zazzle, Ad Sense, Lulu.) There is nothing wrong with that except that it's what exists now. So unless I missed something, the blueprint is not so unprecedented.

Final Thoughts About Web 3.0 User-Generated Business

Web 3.0 User-Generated Business has some high points, but it's difficult to consider it a book. It's a PowerPoint conversion with added conversation. There are a few high points and novices might find it worthwhile. But anybody beyond the entry level of monetization concepts will find it anti-climactic.

Simply put, if you are among the relatively small audience who is already dabbling in becoming a media entrepreneur, you aren't likely to find a breakthrough in this book. However, if you are a blogger who is just considering monetization, then Bhakdi's book may help you get up to speed, assuming you haven't connected with people who write about this stuff daily.

Otherwise, Web 3.0 User-Generated Business comes across as what I call a "business card book," which is indicative of most books being introduced in the field. I don't get it. Most social media books are long on attempting to demonstrate thought leadership by sharing what a healthy percentage already know with the shrinking pool of people who don't know anything.

Further, in using his own social media assets as examples, the book seems to miss out on a viable purpose. If the book, using its own blueprint, aims at being the revenue generator, then more care might have been taken to ensure it didn't pitch platforms owned by the author. That said, the book seems less interesting than the impossibly slow-loading Klatcher (the first time anyway) or Bhakdi's posts and presentations. Get to know him in those places first.