Advertising Time: Real Time Vs. My Time

Louis Gray wrote an interesting post about real time news, especially as it relates to the explosion of interest spurred along by social sharing tools. In truth, it probably started happening before social networks. Most blog posts have a perceived shelf life (even if freshness might not matter).

Most people readily jumped on the bandwagon, with some people saying that delayed news will no long be acceptable. When they don't have enough time to keep up with readers, they reconcile everything at the end of the week, scanning the first two or three before marking the last 50 read. Even Google wants the Web fresh, enough so that it is willing to alter search algorithms to favor freshness over depth.

Gray's point is right on the money. Real time could very well be a temporary trend, fueled by an illusion. Every day, we receive nuggets of real time news a mile wide and an inch deep, when what we usually want is in-depth information on whatever topic might happen to be top of mind.

Good luck finding it. Even something as simple as an album review can be difficult to find under the wash of "fresh" track listings for more popular artists releasing an LP. Don't bother looking for song lyrics for any band with fewer than two million fans. Ringtone companies have that search sewed up. And many companies operating on networks, assuming they respond at all, are more interested in creating the illusion of real time service. Your issue will be resolved just as quickly by picking up the phone, with the only caveat to make it public.

Real time doesn't hold a candle to what people want, and marketers might take notice.

But it's more than that where Gray strikes at the heart of the matter. We don't want freshness. We want on demand content when we want it, much like more and more people expect their entertainment served up.

"Advents in information and content sharing over the last few years have instead made 'on demand' a reality, getting me what I want when I want it, not when someone else decides for me," writes Gray.

This gave me some pause about marketing too. Since the 1950s, advertisers have been attempting to create a false sense of urgency with ever increasing last chance "opportunities." Never mind that your last chance to save 40 percent really means until next Monday when we restart the email.

When you really think about what advertisers are doing (beyond telling you that they mark their products up so high that their profit margin can absorb a 40 percent reduction), they are marketing urgency with the expressed objective to convince you to make a purchase on their time.

Sometimes it works. But just because it works today, doesn't mean it will work tomorrow.

Consumers might be ripe to experience "on demand" marketing much like they enjoy on demand entertainment today and maybe, as Gray suggests, on demand news tomorrow. The best time to offer someone a discount is when they want to buy the product — their time, on demand.

Advertising Consolidation: Employment Projections

According to The Creative Group, most advertising executives aren't looking to hire new employees in the near term. But people in the communication industry can still consider this good news because only 4 percent of marketing and advertising agencies are considering layoffs and 18 percent anticipate hiring staff in the next there months.

"Many companies are looking to refresh their branding to reflect new product and service offerings, as well as take their marketing campaigns to the next level in the year ahead," said Donna Farrugia, executive director of The Creative Group.

In other words, most agencies are increasingly interested in diversifying the services they offer and the staff they employ. Based on which professionals they are most interested in hiring, it seems most want to provide full-service communication to their clients, with an emphasis on non-traditional agency functions such as public relations, web design, and social media.

Top five agency positions in demand for first quarter 2012.*

1. Account services (24 percent)
2. Brand/product managers (21 percent)
3. Public relations professionals (17 percent)
4. Web designers (16 percent)
5. Social media professionals (14 percent)

*Based on executive responses to the question: "In which of the following areas do you expect to hire in the first quarter of 2012? Media services and marketing research also scored better than 10 percent. While mobile application developers, interactive media, print design/production, creative/art direction, and copywriting all lagged under 10 percent. 

What this means is that many advertising agencies are not only looking to bring more public relations and social media services in house, but they are also increasingly interested in offering these services as a total package, something many marketing clients have been asking agencies to do for years.

In fact, diversification seems to be one of the primary reasons that most marketing and advertising executives are confident in their growth prospects next year. Eighty-nine percent said they were confident, even among those that were not planning to hire in the first quarter. Others, of course, based on their hiring priorities, are hoping to grow their agencies simply by hiring more account executives.

What agencies seem less interested in hiring are what used to be considered essential services at an advertising agency — creative directors, art directors, and copywriters. In terms of priority, all three lagged well behind non-traditional positions, with copywriters coming in dead last.

Advertising agencies are betting on a very different game.

Believe it or not, there are two reasons that marketing and advertising executives are shifting priorities. While many see public relations and online services as essential for growth, they also say that it is increasingly difficult to find skilled creative professionals. Without having the best creative in house, agencies are becoming more reliant on distinguishing themselves in other areas.

It could also allude to another trend in the industry. More executives are increasingly confident in outsourcing creative services but less confident outsourcing or partnering with public relations and social media firms. Part of the reason might be related to how both services are billed (creative is often outsourced by the project whereas public relations and social media are retained).

All of this is part of an ongoing trend that started several years ago, but was punctuated last year. In the quest to own social media, advertising agencies are bringing social media in house much like many brought web design in house during the 1990s. And for those who see public relations firms as owning social might note, it seems more agencies are simply bringing that service in house too.

Teaching Social Media: The Real World Test

While I was walking down the long narrow hallway toward the computer lab where I was scheduled to teach a social media class, I had a revelation. I was marketing myself all wrong offline.

What I really needed to do is use "proven online social media strategies" offline. You know, all those proven strategies, not by the people who know something about communication and marketing but by the people that we know all about. Right, you know who they are. I don't even have to tell you. That's the point. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

Social Media In The Real World.

I. Increase Followers. 

As I said, I was walking down the narrow hallway, and I started to think about how important the number of followers is in social media. Apparently, it's important. The more people, the better. 

I stopped dead in my tracks. I needed to know how many students were in the class.

I looked rather clumsy, standing there, juggling two water bottles in my left hand, the satchel slipping off my shoulder, and handouts spilling out as I tugged at the flap with my right hand. But I didn't care. Numbers are too important.

It took a little more fumbling, but I found it: The student roster. One ... two ... three ... I stopped, mouth agape. I counted them again. Eight. And then I counted again. Still eight.

Eight isn't so good. The class usually pulls in 20. In truth, I wasn't surprised. The former program director had scheduled the class the weekend between Veterans Day and Thanksgiving. Right. I was a prime time network show being moved to Friday in the hope we could win a weak night. It never works.

So I retraced my steps and started peeking inside the other classrooms to see how many students they had. Six ... five ... seven ... twelve ... hmmm ... now that was more like it. I walked in, and put my satchel on the desk in the front of the room. The other professor looked at me, crinkling her brow. 

II. Troll Management. 

"Can I help you," she said, hands on hips, looking like a sad sack. 

"No, you can go now," I said, feeling better because I had increased my followers from eight to 12. 

She stood there for a minute, obviously shaken, and then made some sort of spitting noise. I was going to ignore her, but she was making the students in the class uncomfortable. So I gave her something to do.

"You know, you can report me to the office if you like," I said. "And while you're there, can you tell them to make me more handouts? I need more. A lot more."

III. Crowd-sourcing. 

I pulled down the overhead screen in front of the white board. It took a few tries, but eventually it stuck. I turned to face the class, and smiled. 

"Today, we're going to talk about social media." 

"Um, this is supposed to be an accounting class," one of the students said. 

"Um, no, this used to be an accounting class," I said, raising my hands to encourage them to show a preference. "Today, it's student choice. Facebook and Twitter or assets and liabilities."

I counted the hands. Five for accounting. Six for social media. One abstained. 

"No hand raised doesn't count," I scolded. "Engagement matters. What do you want to talk about?"

"Twilight."

The class groaned. Accounting was now social media. 

IV. Sharing. 

After establishing that this was now social media, I shared a little bit of my background and then looked  out over the class blankly. And they looked back at me, blankly. So I tried to prod them along. 

"Questions?" 

"You haven't told us anything yet," muttered the Twilight kid. 

"Social media doesn't work that way, Mr. Cullen," I countered, almost glib in my excitement to show I was a real guru. "You can only share information at a rate of one to eight. That means eight of you have to say something first or one of you can say something eight times. I don't care, either way."

"He doesn't care, either way," beamed one of the students. 

"He doesn't care, either way," said another. 

"He doesn't care, either way," added a third.

There's always one or three in every crowd. I squinted my eyes at them. 

"I'd appreciate it if you would wait for us to cover retweets before doing that," I said. "Moving on ..."

V. Quantity. 

Before I could continue, the troll I booted out earlier had come back. She brought some gangling looking office assistant who stood at least a foot taller then me. That's pretty tall. I'm 6 foot.

"Oh good, did you bring the handouts?"

"Handouts?" he said, as if it that was the first he'd ever heard of it. 

"Yes, I specifically asked her to make copies," I said, motioning my hand up like a conductor to the class.

"He did ask for handouts," said one of the students. 

"Yes, she was going to get handouts," said another, grinning, chin in both palms. 

Good, I thought. I was making real progress here. 

"Yes, I need lots of handouts," I said, a few of the students casting the office assistant glances. "It doesn't matter what you bring. Just bring them, lots of them."

Handouts are important. It's what sets most content creators apart from conversationalists. The general concept is simple enough. If you barrage everyone with enough content, they'll be too dazed to notice that you haven't given them anything useful. 

VI. Mob Rules.

The office assistant's phone buzzed. It was his girlfriend. She confirmed it. I needed handouts. 

"And take Debbie downer with you," I said. "I'm trying to teach here."

Two of the students stood up, acting as if they were ready to usher them out. I was impressed. We hadn't covered mob rules, but these kids took to it like coke heads with Pixie Stix. 

"It's cool," he stammered. "I mean, yes sir."

And off they went.

Since I didn't really have anything to hand out yet, I suggested a break. Who knows? The students might even have enough time to come up with the rest of the class content if I waited long enough. But in retrospect, I wish I hadn't told them to take a break. I didn't really need a break. I was on a roll.

VII. Adding Value.

I decided to maximize my time instead. I revisited all the classrooms I passed by earlier and poked my head in to listen in. Eventually, the other professors would sense my presence and invite me into their conversations. It was easy, like playing Farmville on Facebook.

"No, no," I would shake my head. "Except, you know, that one point you made..."

"Yes?"

"It's all very wrong," I would pounce, and then launch into a counter argument.

It didn't even matter so much what I was saying. All that mattered is that I offered some semblance of initiative understanding. That was enough. And, of course, it helped when one of the students who was following me everywhere would chime in.

"He's right, you know."

"I'm teaching social media instead of history or whatever this guy is teaching," I concluded. "You're welcome to join me. I'll even cover whatever this subject is when we get to Wikipedia."

VIII. Perks. 

I'm not going to lie and say it worked every time, but it worked well enough. I'd capture or two or sometimes half of their students before pied piper-ring away to the next room. It took 15 minutes.

The results were breathtaking. Even I was surprised when I did a post-break head count. I had 32 students in my class. It wasn't a record by any stretch, but 32 is better than 12 and a million times better than eight, which was the class size I would have had if I was playing by established rules.

"I think I have enough students now to tell you something important," I said.

They all leaned in closer to hear.

"There is a special at Starbucks today," I said. "Right after class. You can join me or go on your own, it doesn't really matter to me as long as you use this code."

I wrote it down on the white board, amused by how low tech teaching can be. Schools need QR codes for this stuff.

"What does that have to do with social media?"

"What does that have to do with social media?" I asked back, but didn't wait for an answer before continuing. "It has everything to do with it. If even ten of you use the code, I get a free T-shirt."

"Free T-shirt," half them chanted, circling the newbie who asked the question like tribes people. It looked like a scene from Lord Of The Flies.

IX. ROI. 

How do I know it was a newbie? It's always the newbie who asks a stupid question like that. What do people think social media experts do, work for free? No. We don't pay for coffee either.

In fact, I was just planning to cover this advanced subject matter when the gangly office assistant showed up again. He had the troll with him and some new guy.

"Did you bring the handouts?" I asked.

"Mr. Clark wanted to speak to you first," he said.

"Yes, I told Burt to hold off until we had a chance to chat," said Mr. Clark.

"Okay," I said, reaching down to my side to feel for a pistol. It sounded like a showdown, and it wasn't even a western.

"Well, if you take the registration of the original either students in your class, minus the cost of all these handouts for 32 students, then you're providing the university a negative return on investment," he said. "What's worse is you never even showed up at the computer lab, so we'll have to issue those students a refund. And all these students will probably want refunds for the classes they left too."

At first, I thought it was because he was standing next to Burt, but Clark was a very little man.

"You're talking about ROI," I said.

"Yes, yes I am," he said.

At first I was going to dazzle him with outcomes, like how many times the class parroted me, but no one said a word. It was quiet. Too quiet. So I let him have it.

"You silly little man," I chuckled. "There's no ROI in social media for you, but there is for them. And me too. Because I ... well, I'm getting that T-shirt today and there is nothing you can do about it."

As the room burst into applause and students chanted "you silly little man" over and over again, I uploaded the entire confrontation on YouTube. I could already feel it in my bones. The book deal was clinched.

Of course there is an ROI, I mused silently. The only real question is: Who gets it?

***

Social media can be an extremely powerful component of a communication plan, assuming it remains grounded in communication. And the easiest way for anyone to test a social media program is to imagine how all those tactics, strategies, and secret formulas might look if someone applied them to offline communication. If you do and it sounds silly, it probably is silly. Have a nice weekend.

Advertising Arts: Poster Design Contest

The Art Institutes and Americans for the Arts, which is the nation's leading nonprofit organization for advancing the arts and arts education, will accept entries for the 2012 Poster Design Competition through Feb. 3, 2012. Winners will earn up to a full tuition scholarship to study at one of the more than 45 Art Institutes schools located in North America.

The theme of the competition is "You Can Create Tomorrow." The competition is broken into two categories: high school seniors and high school graduates/adults (from the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico) to design a poster that best expresses the theme.

"We are inspired by the creativity that students exhibit in the artwork they create for this competition and believe that this scholarship competition helps some of our most talented students achieve their educational goals," said John Mazzoni, president of The Art Institutes. "We, along with our partner, Americans for the Arts, eagerly await submissions to see the innovative and unique ways this year's students express their vision of 'You Can Create Tomorrow'."

Last year, the grand prize winner was Ernest Castillo of Las Vegas. He created a poster that depicts an artist's journey to a magical deep sea environment as he paints his first stroke on a blank canvas. The image exemplified last year's theme "Life Is Better With Art In It." 

As the grand prize winner, he won a full tuition scholarship to study at The Art Institute of Las Vegas. (Had he lived in a different city, the scholarship would have been awarded closer to home.) His work was also showcased along other entries at a Congressional Reception on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. 

Castillo was overcome with the news, never believing that he would have an opportunity to earn a degree in art. Two other winners, Adrianna Simmons and Paulina Zaborny, received half- and quarter-tuition scholarships. Their sentiment matched Castillo's excitement, which is one of the reasons that Americans for the Arts supports the annual competition. 

"We are excited to be part of this scholarship competition," said Robert L. Lynch, president and CEO of Americans for the Arts. "The entries not only highlight the remarkable talent of our nation's youth, but also remind us what a vital role art plays in our everyday lives."

For more information about the competition, visit The Art Institutes Poster Design Competition. Local winners also receive scholarship money, ranging from $1,000 to $3,000.

 The Art Institutes is a system of more than 45 educational institutions located throughout North America. The Art Institutes schools provide an important source for design, media arts, fashion, and culinary arts professionals. Several institutions included in The Art Institutes system are campuses of South University.

Americans for the Arts is the leading nonprofit organization for advancing the arts in America. With offices in Washington, D.C. and New York City, it has a record of more than 50 years of service. Americans for the Arts is dedicated to representing and serving local communities and creating opportunities for every American to participate in and appreciate all forms of the arts.

Splitting The Difference: Consumer Confidence

If you are looking for evidence that demonstrates what people think and what people do are two different things, December's Consumer Reports Index tells the tale. Consumer confidence remains extremely low and confidence in job market shaky. Yet, the holiday spending index last month was up 13.9 from 12.4 a year ago, with December looking better than last year.

According to Ed Farrell, director of the Consumer Reports Sentiment Index, consumers are shopping because they are tired of demonstrating restraint year after year. So even if their economic outlook remains unchanged, they are spending more in a stable but negative economy.

The mixed bag of data from the Consumer Reports Sentiment Index. 

What's most interesting about the economic climate and consumer sentiment is how fractured the nation seems to be. Different income groups, different age groups, and different regions are experiencing different economic realities and expressing different consumer sentiment.

For example, people have reported more job losses than job gains in the first time in four months, with the Northeast hardest hit. People living in the West are experiencing the most economic stress, due to the economic uncertainty of jobs and the economy. Consumer confidence among people, ages 18-34 and 65+, has remained unchanged or lost ground (career starters and fixed incomes).

People with a current household income over $100,000 have slightly higher consumer confidence whereas people with a household income under $50,000 have slightly less consumer confidence. But it's middle income families that are under the most economic stress.

The report shows that people are most concerned with medical bills and medications, missing payments on major bills, and health care coverage reductions. Whereas the higher household incomes are seeing more stability, middle income families are barely making ends meet. For households under $50,000, 20 percent could not afford medical treatment or medications, 13.5 percent missed a major bill payment (but not a mortgage), and 12.5 percent lost or reduced their health care coverage in the last 30 days.

Irregular economic climates drag consumer confidence down.

One of the reasons national leaders are struggling in developing a solution is because the current economic climate is not allowing for a one-size fix all for the nation. Specifically, some areas of the country believe taxation is the only way out of the current crisis because they need relief while those in less depressed areas know increased tax burdens may erode their marginal economic foothold.

But avoiding the politicized nature of the economic climate, let's consider what this means for marketers. The three key areas where some companies are winning is by focusing on location, confidence, and relevance.

Location, because some regions of the country are outperforming others. Confidence, because some consumers, even in depressed areas, are making purchases. And relevance, because consumers will purchase meaningful products regardless of their financial situation.

While holiday spending has increased, personal electronics is the only segment of the economy that has successfully demonstrated it can deliver meaningful products. In fact, the increases in spending this year are largely tied to personal electronics, which is up 31.4 percent (up 21.2 percent from last month).

According to the Daily Finance, six of the top ten product purchases are related to electronics. Only Pillow Pets, Australian short boots (that cross a boot with a moccasin look), a Fisher Price dancing Mickey Mouse and indoor remote controlled helicopters can compete (you might notice the latter two rely on electronics).

In fact, even Toys "R" Us reported that the LeapPad Explorer is the most sought-after purchase for young children. It makes sense. The LeapPad Explorer is like a tablet for kids, with an education-entertainment bent.

The long and short of it in making marketing decisions into 2012. 

Unless Farrell's one cautionary concern is right — that strong holiday sales could set the economy up for a weak first quarter — marketers have to do a better a job focusing on proximity (financially stable areas), demographics (select incomes), and psychographics (specific interests and positive outlooks). That means segmenting markets, targeting people who can actually buy the product (instead of blasting everyone), and making meaningful connections to the product or service offering.

Those are the questions to ask. Are you in the right markets? Are you reaching the right people? And are you demonstrating that your product can add tangible value beyond status? Because if anything has changed, status products just don't cut it anymore.

Reconditioning Engagement: Not What You Think

During my class last weekend, I said it plainly enough. If you want to create a true online community, you need to look beyond "being on" a social network. You or your organization need to build one.

It doesn't have to be the next Facebook. It might even be tied to the functionality of your site, with differing degrees of community, as not all communities are created equal. And that's all right. Not everyone needs a strong community. Weak communities can produce equally powerful outcomes.

An oversimplified observation between strong and weak communities. 

BlogCatalog, for example, has a reasonably strong community. It used to be more robust than it is today, but there is no mistaking it as anything less than a community. People identify with it, invest time in it, connect with other members, develop friendships, and sometimes take action on its behalf. There are others too. As clunky as it can be, Ragan has built a community. So has Recruiting Blogs.

Kickstarter, on the other hand, has a weak community. It's one of my favorite sites, but the structure of the site doesn't necessarily create relationships between members as much as it creates them between backers and creators. People do identify with it and invest time, but connecting with other members is relatively rare and members take action on behalf of the creators more than the site. The same can be said about DonorsChoose, another favorite of mine.

Google+, as it exists today (tomorrow may be different), and Twitter aren't really communities. You can build connections, followings, events, lists, and loosely aligned links. But it doesn't necessarily build a community. And then there is Facebook, which can be used to create some semblance of a community. However, most organizations do not.

The difference is largely in how we define, view, and establish engagement. And today, most organizations define online engagement in terms of likes, clicks, shares, comments, etc. as Richard Millington reminded me the other day on Feverbee.* His argument is both right and wrong. And here's why...

Actions indicate activity, but not engagement or community. 

The cornerstone of Millington's argument is that people who "like" a Facebook page aren't active enough. That is a fair and valid point. However, I know people who live in my city that aren't very active either. Does that make them a non-member of the community? Or our community any less than a community? I don't think so.

That is not to say that Millington is wrong. He is right that Facebook pages aren't the best places to create a community. And he provides several alternatives.

However, that doesn't mean it cannot be done. I manage some pages that have all the elements of a community, even if the actions are not always evident. I also belong to a couple of Facebook groups. One in particular, which is private, is truly a small and vibrant community. Although it lacks the scale of something like BlogCatalog or Ragan, we all contribute and interconnect, from time to time, and have conversations. Some more than others. And that's okay too.

But more importantly, it seems to me, organizations don't necessarily have to build a community to create engagement (unless they want to encourage members to engage with each other). And that leads to another observation. Engagement is not measured by actions (outcomes maybe, but not actions).

This was a direction I moving in when I wrote an article about how word of mouth happens offline more often than online. When I pulled in the Keller Fay study, which looked at online activity as opposed to offline activity, it was to dispel the notion that the number of "likes" somehow means that the page is engaged. The study proves that many users are not even active, let alone engaged.

But there's more. If the same brand enjoys 880 million offline conversations during an average month, including 442 million active recommendations to buy or try it, it is obviously a highly engaged brand despite those people existing independent of any community. Likewise, looking at those numbers again, nobody discounts the half that have nothing to do with a purchase like social media skeptics always want to do with social media (e.g., they think unless it results in a sale, it's a waste).

Beyond that, nobody can really track all those silent conversations and conversions that manifest when we least expect it. I was reminded of one the other day.

I was speaking with my aunt over the holidays and we were talking about education. Before I could tell her what I thought about a specific issue, she told me what she thought, which I recognized as my own thought.

"That's uncanny," I said. "I was just going to offer that up."

"Really?" she said. "I just read an article about it."

"Really?!?" I just wrote an article about it. Where did you read the article you saw?"

"Oh, you know, come to think of it, I think it was on your blog."

We laughed, and my mind whirled at the same time. She is not a member of "my" community. She does not make any measurable "actions" online. And yet, she was obviously engaged by the article when she was reading it, and based upon her response, possibly influenced by it.

Sometimes I think the communication industry is so busy attempting to measure social media that we forget how real engagement works. Ergo, if you read this post (or at least some of it), you were engaged for a period of time. What happens after that — whether you click, comment, or share — has nothing much to do with it, unless you want it to.

*If you read the Feverbee post, which is a good one, please ignore my comment there. I misread his post, which cited repurposed content from my blog, and then made a statement that "this" was misleading. He meant how people define activity is misleading. It happens.