In any case, I managed to stay awake throughout the day long enough to take some notes on some key takeaways from the summit which you will find below.  I also had the chance to meet several folks in person that I have been reading or known from afar, including Peter Kim, Henry Copeland, and Emanuel Rosen (author of The Anatomy of Buzz).  Though some of the "wonder of Nielsen" presentations that I expected throughout the day ran a bit long (not yours, Pete!) – overall the day was a great deep dive into all the ways we can and should be measuring.  As one speaker shared earlier in the day, "media is not an island" and is interconnected as consumers watch and interact with messages across mediums. Marketers may be specialists in one particular channel (TV, Online, Mobile, WOM, etc.) … but consumers are most definitely becoming experts in all of them and use them concurrently. 

Anyway, here are some key notes and insights I took away from the event:

1. Influencers are emailers.  There was an interesting data point in one of the presentations that said that 55% of people who were considered "speakers" (those who share opinions vocally) have emailed directly to a company about a product that they liked.  This was a big insight throughout the day, as it indicated that brands seeking their influencers may simply need to listen more closely to the feedback they are already getting.
2. CGM generates powerful insights, not just influential voices to "target" – In response to a question from Max, I shared this point of view during the recap of the day and it was something that came up repeatedly throughout the morning.  Listening to CGM can drive strategy if you find the gaps which you can use CGM and social media to solve.  One example I shared was using CGM to find the conversation about Julian Beever (a sidewalk chalk artist) before we started our Fountain of Youth program for Aveeno.  We learned that there was lots of discussion online where people wanted to see more of his images and know how he does it.  So we created a Flickr gallery of all his images and a video of him drawing to rave reviews online.
3. Buzzphrase #1: Consumer Fortified Media - This was a new concept that Pete introduced in his presentation about how brands are putting their commercial messages online (like Dove Evolution), and consumers are talking about them and adding credibility to these messages, thus making them fortified.  Of course, there is a handy acronym for this as well: CFM.  (I suppose it could be CFM2 when those commercial messages are for products already "fortified" … um, like Fruit Loops).
4. A new reason 2008 Superbowl ads will be better than the game - The guy from Fox Interactive shared that next year Fox has a deal with the NFL to create an official site where the 30 second spots will be accompanied by "long form video."  The smart marketers will take the chance to create "making of" secondary ads around their $3 million Superbowl spots.  Not sure how CGM plays a part here (unless lots of brands do the "you can create our Superbowl ad" thing again), but I still thought this idea of extending the most watching ads in the world with long form content behind them is a great concept.  Maybe worth an idea bar post at some point …
5. "Getting out of the way" is a strategy - During the panel where media brands shared what they believe will happen in 2010, the guy from CBS talked about the things that they are doing and noted a significant moment where a random user placed a clip from Letterman where he interviewed Paris Hilton on YouTube and the clip got millions of views.  His point … we didn’t go after him, which signifies a great case study.  I loved the irony that getting out of the way is now considered a strategy.  Actually, sometimes it’s the best one. 
6. Buzzphrase #2: Consumer Emulation- In this second concept from Pete’s presentation early in the day, he talked about how we are in the midst of a wave of "consumer emulation."  Citing examples like the JetBlue and Mattel CEOs addressing the public as if they were doing consumer produced Youtube videos, or politicians and celebs who have Facebook or MySpace pages  – the point he made is that the pros are sometimes emulating the amateurs.  And of course, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t …
7. It’s not about volume anymore - The great conflict with how brands used to purchase media to buy influence online versus how they do now is that tricky measure of CPMs.  When you are buying in blocks of thousands of impressions, it is impossible to say you are not buying volume.  Yet as many marketers noted today, less is really becoming more.  One thought I shared is that sponsorships of blogs and social media sites that are persistent can offer a much higher value, but not measured in terms of page views, but rather in terms of brand perception.
8. The silo-fication of marketing remains a barrier – Many of the brands that participated in the day were large ones, and all seemed to struggle with similar issues when it comes to ownership.  This was not about the typical debate on whether blogs belong in corporate comm, or product development, or marketing, etc.  The silos on a macro level are those between marketing/communications, customer service, product testing, and other large divisions.  In many large organizations, these groups are in geographically disparate locations.  CGM may be a brilliant place to gather insight, but if the marketing team who gets the blog monitoring reports isn’t sharing them with product development, or the customer service team who is speaking with a blogger doesn’t share that information with marketing … the power of CGM is never realized.

Comments

Every once and a while I come across a simply excellent white paper.

I found one that really is over the top.

I was working on a project for one of my clients, regarding word-of-mouth marketing.

The paper is titled Consumer-Generated Media (CGM) 101: Word-of-Mouth in the Age of the Web-Fortified Consumer and written by IntelliSeek (now Nielsen BuzzMetrics).

This is one of the best pieces I have seen for a number of reasons:

• It is highly educational and informative
• It establishes the sponsoring company as a thought leader
• It very subtly inserts sales messages
• It’s formatting and layout is simply incredible

I would like you pay close attention to the following items when examining this paper:

• The first page: Note the very large text in the opening sentence and large type on the rest of the page. Also notice how the problems are clearly identified.
• Writing style: The words are very easy to digest in this paper.
• Creative use of columns: I am not a big fan of multiple columns, but these guys did it right. There is space on the left for call outs and hand written notes for those who print the piece. Note that page one has no columns (an important point to draw in the reader).
• Exceptional use of sidebars: Nearly every page uses sidebars (extra information to bolster the story). Note the full page sidebar on page 6 AND the “Consumer-Generated Chicken Buzz?” on page 9.
• A quiz: What a quiz you say?? Yes, there is a quiz on page 9, titled “A Marketer’s Quiz: Questions to Ask Yourself.” This is an excellent example of adding valuable content for the reader.
• Use of photography: Nicely done to add to the story in a few places (including the cover).
• Case studies: Page 14 has a few simple case studies.

Folks, I suggest you carefully study this white paper. Much can be learned. It is one of the best examples I have ever seen.

What are your thoughts about this piece? Do you apply any of these tactics?

Comments

Tag:

iEntry Inc. CEO Rich Ord is in Boston for the VON conference, delving into the future of video on the Net.

Allaire is no stranger to the industry, and he shouldn’t be a stranger to you. If you ever used or developed Flash software, then you’ve met him indirectly. Formerly the chief technical officer for Macromedia, which was later acquired by Adobe, Allaire helped evolve the most prolific platform for rich media applications on the Web.

At VON, Allaire speaks not just of Brightcove’s Content Syndication Network, a new publishing platform for accepting consumer-generated video, but also of the future of CGM in general. Allaire says CGM is a precursor to “mass consumer video communications.”

“Consumer-generated media has an opportunity to be aligned with brands and content topics, he said. “Consumers want to participate in communities, which leads to the need to leverage the benefits of editorial review, filtering, and programming.”

The idea behind Brightcove is a service that can launch CGM campaigns. Publishers can create an account, log in with basic information, and then directly submit a video. The system acts as a filter, allowing the publisher to review the video at Brightcove before adding to their own website.

This a pragmatic approach to the chief complaint of marketers leery of jumping into the world of CGM, as compelling and pervasive as it may be, because of the inherent lack of control that CGM carries with it.

“It opens up for any website in the world to take advantage of submitted video by consumers relevant to your site,” he said.

Also, “Internet TV needs an affiliate and syndication system because affiliate systems are one of the foundations of Internet business. This could provide new sources of revenue for content producers and websites syndicating the content.”

During limited beta testing, publishers can try it for free.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

First, blogger Derek Powazek has called for an end to the use of the term “User Generated Content.” I suppose that would be UCG. Funny, that wasn’t one of the many three-letter-words I’ve heard applied to the concept of media created by members of the audience instead of the traditional purveyors of content (ad agencies, marketing firms, etc.). Part of the problem is that we haven’t settled on a single term for this stuff. Joseph Jaffe, for instance, likes “citizen media,” if I recall correclty fromthe first of his two-part Across the Sound podcast with Pete Blackshaw and Jackie Huba.

In any case, what bothered me about Powazek’s post was his articulation of what “User Generated Content” means:

User: One who uses. Like, you know, a junkie.

Generated: Like a generator, engine. Like, you know, a robot.

Content: Something that fills a box. Like, you know, packing peanuts.

So what’s user-generated content? Junkies robotically filling boxes with packing peanuts. Lovely.

Calling the beautiful, amazing, brilliant things people create online “user-generated content” is like sliding up to your lady, putting your arm around her and whispering, “Hey baby, let’s have intercourse.”

So what’s his alternative? “Authentic Media.” Well, now, let’s see. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition), “media” in Powazek’s post refers to “a means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television.” The same source defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief.”

So, “authentic media” then, is some kind of mass communication that conforms to fact and is worthy of trust. This defines everything coming out of the CGM space? And all traditional advertising and marketing creative is inauthentic? C’mon. All Powazek has done is add another term to the list that people have announced they hate. These include podcast, blog, blogosphere, Web 2.0, and a host of others. The nice thing about labels, though, is that everyone knows what you mean when you use them. No need for labored explanations. For all the essays condemning “Web 2.0″ as marketing hype, I know when it’s used that it’s addressing the combination of social media and read-write web applications like those created using Ajax. (Oh, yeah. Some people don’t like “Ajax.”)

Besides, Derek, it’s just as easy to use these definitions instead of the ones you stretched for:

User: Someone who uses tools someone else has created specifically to be used.

So what’s user-generated content? People using tools to produce creative material.

None of which helps answer this question: What should a company do when UCG or CGM or CM is used in a way that is most definitely contrary to the images the company wants to project? This question surfaced several months ago when somebody produced a TV-like commercial promoting Volkswagen’s durability by showing a terrorist blow himself up in the car; the car contained the blast and those nearby remained blissfully unaware that anything had happened. (At least, I believe it’s CGM; I can’t imagine a real ad agency producing something like this, but I could be wrong. It’s not like advertisers have never produced anything inappropriate or offensive before.) Volkswagen, one expects, wouldn’t have been too pleased having its cars associated with terrorism.

Now comes a CGM TV commercial for the iPod. If you haven’t seen it, be warned: It’s about as far from family-friendly as it gets. Definitely not safe for work.

CGM (or whatever we end up agreeing to call it) is wonderful, and it’s not going anywhere. When it crosses the line, though, companies are going to have to figure what to do-or not do-in response. To be honest, I’m not sure what my counsel to Apple would be. I’m leaning toward ignoring it for fear of being branded prudish, but I’m just not 100% certain. What do you think?

Add to | Digg | Yahoo! My Web

Technorati:

Shel Holtz is principal of Holtz Communication + Technology which focuses on helping organizations apply online communication capabilities to their strategic organizational communications.

As a professional communicator, Shel also writes the blog a shel of my former self.

Today, Lawrence Lessig’s blog directed me to a music video Coulton has created, made up of photos from Flickr that allowed him to use them based on their Creative Commons licenses. Lessig calls it an example of building the “read-write Web.” It is definitely a case of consumer-generated media at work.

Shel Holtz is principal of Holtz Communication + Technology which focuses on helping organizations apply online communication capabilities to their strategic organizational communications.

As a professional communicator, Shel also writes the blog a shel of my former self.