The 'real winner' at the Grammys was Arby's?!

Give me a break.

I can’t stand how news outlets feel the need to sensationalize everything.

Case in point: this week’s marketing/social media pubs.
Subject: An Arby’s tweet out to singer/song-writer Pharrell Williams.

In case you missed it:

Cute, right?

Sure. But Arby’s was by no means the 'real winner' at the Grammys simply because they tweeted about a hat. They didn't 'slay' anything! (Yea, those are how some of the headlines are phrasing it).

It was a reasonable association between brand and fashion statement.

It was on-point, cute, comical, and timely. I’ll give them that.

But, oh wow – the interaction went exactly as you’d hope one in twitter would.

Let’s be honest. Brands can be a PAIN to follow. Always talking about themselves – what’s new in THEIR world, why THEY’RE the greatest. Sort of like the worst humans you follow, right?

And try as they might to be cute and creative (some undoubtedly doing better than others), it all eventually boils back to self-promotion.

Because that’s what BUSINESSES (have to) do.

Arby’s is (still) just a fast food enterprise. 

Are we supposed to tip our hats to Arby’s (pun INTENDED) because in this particular instance, their aim was not directly business related or self-promotional?

…Because it felt human?

Why not just follow more humans!?

I wonder,

• How many new followers did it provide Arby’s? 
• What will happen with retention when they go back to non-stop product pitching? 
• And most importantly, how many more Beef ‘n Chedds did it sell?

You’re thinking, “Alright, grandpa – you are WAY too young to be this cynical about brands interacting on social media!”

Right?

OK, maybe I am being a bit too harsh.

We’re all marketers, learning to walk the social media tightrope together. The exposure cost seconds to place and pennies to craft, so who can argue with opportunity cost?

It’s just that so many other brands have done it before – they’ve broken character, provided modest laughs, we all move on.

It’s not a new tactic, just Arby’s turn to hit the tenderly-tossed softball!

And just to be clear, I’m not against brands getting cheeky with customers online.

Tweets from businesses can be casual and conversational. They can be cynical, callous, or coy. They just have to jive with the brand they represent.

Of all communication channels, social media is the most anthropomorphic. It should be your brand, PERSONIFIED!

But just like the best characters in literature, movies, and TV, I expect solid, thought-out, consistent (twitter) character development!

Not loose comedy, once in a million tweets.

Ya with me!?

TGIF
-Daniel :)

 PS: and pubs, don’t give me that bull about it being a “slow news week” – we’re DAYS away from Marketing’s biggest stage! (rants and raves on Super Bowl strategies to come)

Twitter hacks ain’t so bad.

Seriously!

First Burger King, then Jeep – last week was HUGE in hacking.

Both accounts seemingly breached by the same outfit (@DFNCTSC – a Twitter account with no tweets; apparently stands for Defonic Team Screenname Club – a collective of hackers once associated with breaching Paris Hilton's T-Mobile account in 2005).

No doubt both will bring up serious concerns over cyber security and corporate protocol around social media. But really, how bad were these two most recent hacks?

@BurgerKing – Mon. 2/18, approx. 12 noon EST.

The hack alleged a takeover by McDonald’s, however in-eloquent. Tweets rambled on for nearly an hour before Burger King/Twitter finally caught on to the act, suspending the account and blocking delivery of new lascivious tweets.

@Jeep – Tue. 2/19, approx. 1pm EST.

Jeep’s hack followed similar suit, intimating a business takeover by Cadillac (nameplate under GM). Again, tweets were far from funny – nonsensical ramblings and obscure drug and gang references. And the folks at Chrysler were “back in the driver’s seat” before the afternoon was out.

So, why is it good?

It doesn’t negatively impact brand value. – Quite the opposite, actually. Members of the twittersphere can immediately recognize a hack, and just like that, disconnect any negative sentiment that may arise from offensive language. Instead, it seems to stimulate a sense of empathy and reality for the account, re-engaging users upon the  legit owner’s return.

It adds followers. – Burger King gained 30k followers; Jeep gained a (more) modest 3k. And isn’t audience growth one of the most important things? Like when celebrities decide to self-destruct in 140 characters or less, people tune in for the drama, but getting ‘em to stay is another story. Again, content is king and the pressure is on to retain new minds.

So, while we’ve established that the brand gets something with their hack, what do we readers get?

Not much.

Is it too much to demand a higher breed of comedy?

More satire, less sass. – Acting like McDonald’s purchased its arch-nemesis is a great concept. But the intimation stopped there and the predators opted for messaging no more thoughtful than that of a novice, self-involved amateur user. Superfluous street slang, cheap drug humor, and poor spelling don’t feel like a McDonald’s run Burger King Satire – and that’s what new followers tuned in to see.

How about a Ronald vs. King Mascot face-off? Maybe a Big Mac/Whooper menu mash-up? Get creative in a way that McDonald’s would NEVER in a real Burger King take-over!

Makes you wish these hacking outfits could add a few über-creative marketers, even comedy writers to the payroll. It would make their reign more entertaining and engaging.

Where should I submit my résumé? :)  

Why so mean, Social Media?

Have you ever stopped to read the replies or comments posted on one of your favorite brand’s Facebook pages or twitter accounts?

WARNING: Offensive Content

Do it sometime.

And I thought I had no friends!?

Incoherent, whiny requests; negative and downright offensive language; even the most beloved brands fall victim.

Why? 

There’s a certain anonymity about social media that encourages users to more freely speak their minds.

Unlike real-time verbal altercations in the physical world, where going face-to-face with brand reps can quickly turn personal, virtual brand stewards are able to digest onslaught opinion and respond with a delay.

And so, their responses are ALWAYS cool, calm, and collected (which, when you’re fired up, only provokes a deeper rage).

You don’t want to host your own brand roast.

These types of environments are no longer positive. They aren’t conducive to brand building – even with your strongest advocates. The bulk of dialogue has turned petty and reactionary.

So what should you do when you’re not feeling the Social Media Love?

1. Start by practicing self-regulation

I know – the last thing you want to do with an angstful group of followers is start deleting posts. You fear removing their comments will only lead to their posting 5 more – accusing you of being anti-American, anti-free speech, etc.

LEGO has the right idea. Consider validating regulation by establishing a vague set of “house rules:” 

Playing it cool...

Sure, as a toy manufacture catering primarily to children; monitoring social media is a bit more justifiable. Still, offensive language and distracting content is something you as forum owner should NOT be afraid to remove.

But mind the fine line.

Don’t delete EVERYTHING that feels negative

People should be able to post legitimate gripes. They’ll respect you more for leaving it – and be more interested to hear your resolve. In that respect, social media can serve as a think tank for constant improvement.

2. When monitoring fails, scale back completely

Forget what you’ve heard – not everyone has a reason to be active on Facebook and Twitter.

If the bulk of your posts (business and non-business alike) are met with hostility, just BAIL.

Keep place holders on all the big players. Consider making social media’s sole purpose the dissemination of “emergency information” – (issues affecting coverage, outlet closures, etc).

Bottom line: Social media efforts should bolster brand affinity, not disparage it.

Don’t play host to a growing community of disgruntled customers.

If it feels like it’s not enhancing your relationship with customers – scale back.

The best ads say it all without saying anything…

While exploring the blogosphere, I stumbled across this brilliant ad by Rep/Grey out of Bogotá, Colombia for AKT Motos.

Sometimes it’s better to just let the picture do all the talking.

Now, I’m not about to buy one of these motor scooters or anything – but the point is still well taken.

Who can’t in a moment of earnestness admit their spending too much [empty] time on social media?

By transforming the Facebook and Twitter logos into traditional architectural renderings, we’re reminded how detached a life lived solely through social media can be.

We need balance. We need the real world!

To really drive the notion of isolation home, I would have liked to have seen no doorway out of the logo.

(And if I were in the market for a new place, Facebook is totally the cooler pad).

Same point, different execution

Now that I’ve got my creative juices going…picture it:

Frame 1: A dark, lonely room, the only light is what’s emitting from a computer monitor. Crouched over it, a tired, worn subject staring blankly at the screen. Right hand on the mouse, left hand propping up his head. In his glasses, the reflection of the Facebook/twitter interface.

Frame 2: Visually dynamic, bright surroundings – the same subject now rejuvenated, smiling – his sunglasses (snow ski goggles?) are reflecting the spectacular real-world that sprawls out before him.

[Logo] – Thumb through the life of others or live one of your own.

Just off the top of my head. :P

The whole pitch is an interesting concept – as the feature isn’t in direct competition with either social media platform. And yet, it resonates as an aspiring alternative.

Whether you’re actually in the market for a motor scooter, ski/beach trip or not, it’s a play we can all relate to – spend less time trolling social media!

When brands talk politics...

The most impactful marketing is timely.

To follow the outcome of Tuesday night’s election, Kenneth Cole had two variations ready and waiting to print. Up early in time for Wednesday’s morning rush, New Yorkers taking the Westside Highway were greeted with this:

Advertisement or personal status update on Facebook?

In what has become signature KCole style, the black-on-white clever, play on words celebrates (what we assume to be) Kenneth Cole’s personal preferred election outcome.

Shortly after the erected billboard began to go viral, the designer tweeted out the alternate copy – should Romney have clinched the nomination:

Both short, sweet, and full of Big Bird. Two clearly different tones.

Is it smart for brands to talk politics?

Forget the undecided. For most Americans, political association has taken on an almost a cult-like blinded pride. Members of either party stand ready and willing to defend their deeply-rooted allegiance however possible; verbal spars, animated .gifs, and, when appropriate, vows to ban brand patronage.

That’s the danger of taking a side when trying to appeal to the mass market.

Kenneth Cole’s personal twitter profile clearly states “My tweets are not representative of the corporate @kennethcoleprd feed.” But it’s hard to separate the two, especially with synonymous naming conventions.

What originally got me thinking in this direction was a statement Starbucks made last week on their Facebook page.

Case and point. Here, Starbucks felt inclined to comment on the rising chatter surrounding the organizations founder and CEO Howard Schultz’s personal support for Barack Obama – to make clear that, as an inorganic business enterprise, Starbucks has NO official political leanings.

Basically, don’t stop buying our goods, GOP-backers. WE love everyone!

The right tone to take, when you are looking to grow market/wallet share (better still if you don’t have to clarify in the first place).

What it all boils down to…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We don’t grow up we just grow old.

As adults, we can still be big babies. Pressuring one another to conform, chiding one another when we don’t.

Social media affords brands the opportunity to play human – to have a voice alongside an individual’s friends and family. It’s a great tactic but one that exposes the brand to direct attacks. Humans act on emotion and one never knows what might trigger a response.

Just ask Chick-fil-A (banned personally by this blogger for more than a year now). It’s hard to concentrate on business when you are pulled into a political juxtaposition between a polarized American public.

Pledging allegiance (whether real or perceived) seems to work for some and not others.

For Kenneth Cole, it seems to work.

It’s not our intention to stereotype, but as a NYC-inspired, youth-focused designer brand, there’s no doubt the bulk of KC buyers are liberal. (And are Republicans even fashion-conscious enough to discern between KC and other competing brands as they thumb through dress shirts at the local Sears?). :)

The ads get people talking; they’re current event-conscious and hip. Success!

I suppose it’s just another gray area each brand to feel out for themselves…