Marketing Memos

I’m hoping for antisocial media.  I can see how to make a buck off of that.

Meanwhile, social media continues to gain dominance in marketing, and for good reason.  Humans, and even politicians, are social animals.  We commune for pleasure, profit and procreation (which pretty much describes a day in the life of Eliot Sprtizer).  Even the most sterile of pursuits requires some social aspect.  Every poor blogger, alone in his office, hammers out prose in order to asynchronously connect with other humans.

Business-to-business (B2B) activities are thus social interactions.  Oracle commits social acts when it interacts with other enterprises, aside from the select few it eats.  Thus social media should be a component of B2B. The oddest aspect of B2B social media concerns who in the relationship needs to socialize and why.  The failure to think through these two questions have led to various B2B social media catastrophes including most of the old executive blogs at Sun Micro.

Relationships, regardless of how tenuous, are the heart of social media.  Your B2B worries center on buyers, suppliers and thought leaders.  These are the primary external groups who are influenced by you and your competitors and thus the ones to which social media is important.

Just ask Oracle’s 28,918 Facebook fans.

When stripped bare, social media for business is mainly about branding.  You need people to perceive your company and products in a particular way.  Social media offers the ability to communicate brand both directly and personally.  The personal aspect is what creates an emotional connection with a human (politicians, having no souls, have no emotions).  B2B social networking is mainly about the communication, amplification or defense of your brand.

Brand communication: At the risk of repeating myself … again … if you do not define and consciously communicate your brand, the market will, and the market is unkind.  Social media’s personal touch gives tremendous opportunity for communicating brands.  Sadly most companies treat the opportunity as advertising, which some people perceive as an antisocial assault (ever notice the advertising you remember most are those that entertain and make you feel).  Any employee (including the CEO) who communicates in social media needs to do so only after reciting your internal brand statement ten times.  Once the brand is reloaded into memory, any social media communication will reflect that brand.

Brand amplification: Often members of an audience will correctly state your brand.  Such acts deserve acknowledgement, appreciation and rephrasing what the other person said with your specific branding words.  Doing so clarifies and amplifies your brand in public places.

Brand defense: Other folks are not as kind, and may have many nasty things to say about your products, your company and maybe even your mama.  Left unchecked, these can escalate into a negative brand image.  Some companies are proactive, and upon seeing a negative comment help the person to resolve their problem or explain why it has to be.  Other companies (most notably the self-destructing Intuit) either ignore community outrage, or worse yet try to censor negative branding.  Social media has to be treated as an opportunity to connect.  As you would with friends or family, treat the other person well.

The hard part about B2B social networking is finding or establishing relevant places to participate.  Proactive companies create social media spaces, be it a Facebook fan page, a public forum based around their market or segment, or even private executive panels.  Many marketing dilatants hijacked these sites for promotional purposes, and rapidly killed the value originally promised.  In more mature markets where social media arose from the masses (such as within trade or technical interest groups), enterprises have joined as members.

The take-away is that your suppliers and your buyers are people and need to be treated as such.  Online social media is merely a rapid extension of normal social interaction.  Since social media is global, asynchronous and everlasting, even B2B businesses need to incorporate it into their overall marketing plan.  Just understand that social does not mean sales, but it does mean social.

Bookmark to:

When does a brand become detrimental to a company?

Ask Google. They are having a relatively rough time with their brand this week.

Google encountered trouble during the corporate equivalent of a temper tantrum. When they discovered that someone in China (presumably the government) had hacked into Google’s network and spelunked through dissident emails, Google threw a hissy fit. Executives at the all knowing Google failed to know that the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) remains one of the most ruthless around. Google should have known this since Google helped the PRC censor Internet information in order to (according to the PRC) “Properly guide Internet opinion.”

Kinda evil, eh?

Google’s brand started dissolving. In Google’s infancy, they adopted an informal corporate motto of “Don’t be evil.” This kindly directive even found its way into Google guiding manifesto “Ten things we know to be true”, a creed that doubled the simpler tradition established by Bill and Dave, of Hewlett and Packard fame, and their five item “HP Way”. On Google’s top ten list is the ideal that “You can make money without doing evil.” The cynics (realists) among us recognize this isn’t a prohibition against doing evil things, just a recognition that it isn’t essential.

The problem was that Google and their admirers amped-up the “don’t be evil” mantra into a core branding element. Google employees view themselves as not evil. Their admirers have nominated Google for digital sainthood. The population in general bought this part of the brand …

Through ignorance they ignored Google’s complicity in Chinese censorship, which is evil.

It was Google’s reaction to being hacked by their partners in civil liberties crime that dinged the Google brand. When Google threatened to cease censoring searches in Shanghai, people asked “Why are you censoring now?” Adages for doing no evil collided with evidence of doing evil. A core and central aspect of the brand was t-boned by reality.

Foremost, brands must be authentic, or at least branding lies must never be discovered. Take used car salesmen … somewhere … please … preferably to the free side of a cliff. Our common perception of these snaky lemon squeezers is opposite of how they sell themselves, as trustworthy and helpful enablers of transportation. The brand they promote conflicts with your perception of them while you stand on the highway shoulder waiting for a tow truck. He sold you “Honest Bill’s Used Cars”, but you now want to buy large caliber ammunition instead.

Honest clunkers. Don’t be evil, but censor.

When composing your brand, you had better base it on something impregnable, lasting and real. Reality is as consistent as gravity and tends to have the same terminal impact. Base your brand on something authentic and that you can keep authentic. Don’t be evil and don’t be a used car salesman.

Bookmark to:

“Bottoms up” is not just something you say during cocktail hour or at a strip club. It is a market strategy as well, and Google will implement it with a fist full of dollar bills.

News of a Google netbook operating system – Chrome OS by name – has emerged. Targeted for netbooks running ARM and x86 chips, COS centers Google’s Chrome browser as the interface to the world and to Google applications. This latest Linux distro is designed to address the bottom of the commercial computing market (we’ll ignore the One Laptop per Child gizmos that would otherwise win the Barrel Bottom Scraper Award for underpowered PCs).

Scott McNealy understood half the equation when in an over-caffeinated frenzy said “The network is the computer.” Naturally McNealy saw the hardware side of the system, being that he was in the hardware business. But as any technology marketing maven will maintain, it is the apps that sell the hardware.

Google is all about the apps.

Restate McNealy’s maxim for software and you get “The Internet is the app.” Google search is arguably the most popular app on the Internet. Their desktop applications … not so much, but for low-end users they are plenty.

Low-end users like netbook buyers.

Now that Google apps (Docs, Gmail, Maps, etc.) can operate offline, and given that Google’s browser can be tweaked to enhance these offline apps, Google has all the components for customer lock-in or delight, depending on how un-evil Google really is. Non-power users who want a computer for the most mundane uses – people for who Open Office is overkill – could easily exist using Chrome OS, Chrome Browser and G-apps. This is probably 80% of the market.

I’ll take an 80% segment any day.

The open marketing question is “what hardware vendors would ever use COS?” Industry analysts assess the low end Microsoft tax on netbooks to be about $20 a unit when XP is deployed, or about 7% of the cost of the cheapest netbook available today at CompUSA. $20 may not sound like a lot to you or me because it is a one-time cost. Some industry estimators expect 35 million of the little laptops to be built this year. The Microsoft tax would rack-up nearly three quarters of a billion dollars, which is serious money to hardware vendors or anyone outside of the Obama administration.

Smart money is betting that Google will ask only a nominal, fixed partner fee for joining the COS party. Pay a few grand to gain access and your hardware company is alleviated of the Microsoft tax. Assuming that the brand of operating system is irrelevant to the average netbook buyer, netbook builders are looking at a few extra million dollars a year to pad their 201Ks (which were 401Ks before the recession).

Google’s goal then becomes monetizing the user, not the OS. Tech pundits predict that advertising will be Google’s approach. This may well be. The evil half of my brain (which in full disclosure actually occupies more than half my cranium) sees a million ways of inflicting advertising on unwary netbook buyers. Most methods however are intrusive, unwelcome and exactly what Google will not do. Chrome will not force people to endure Google ad pop-ups, or permanently scrolling banners on the top of the screen (besides, netbook screens are too small to waste on banner space).

Brand and first choice in external interactions is where Google gains, advertising revenues following online. Google is creating a 100% Google environment and a go-to brand. When netbook users wake in the morning, their lives will revolve around the Google OS. Add Google browser, add Google desktop applications, add Google search (built into everything), ad nausium. It is a completely interconnected and Internet driven brand. Microsoft came close to this when indoctrinated info workers adopted Microsoft Office atop a Microsoft OS.

It was Microsoft’s overriding strategy that both gives Google opportunity and may require Google to cede it.

The question is if Google must open the OS in order to compete. For all Microsoft’s faults (a list that is slightly longer than War and Peace and a Hugo Chavez speech combined) it understood that the application sells everything else. The network is the computer, the Internet is the app, the app is everything. When there is a market leading application, Microsoft supports it then clones it. Microsoft has always entertained, encouraged and even funded developers to assure that the next great app – whatever it may be – will be under development somewhere. Microsoft always wants the Next Big Thing to run on Windows first.

If Google closes COS, it will enjoy only limited market penetration. People slightly more advanced than monkeys – anyone who has not created permanent couch indentations – will eventually want to do something on their netbook that Google has not provided. Google’s desktop toolbar is not a digital Darwinian ecosystem. Gadgets are insufficient. Google will open COS in order to expand.

Just don’t expect it in version 1.x. Google knows not to invite unnecessary heat, and will keep COS locked while it matures and takes complete ownership of the low end of the market. After that beachhead is secure, they will open, expand and become a serious threat to Microsoft.

Bookmark to:

Carly Fiorina’s time at Hewlett Packard and Louis Gerstner time at IBM proved that decentralized management of product lines in a large company is the only sane management strategy.

Lou took an ailing and heavily centralized IBM, and saved it from extinction by decentralizing its product categories. Carly took a healthy, decentralized HP and tried to kill it through heavy centralization.

Now AOL, the perennial poster child for developmentally disabled technology, has seen the light and is decentralizing (while some of their executives face jail time) .

AOL — which lost the ISP wars by failing to add value in broadband, and whose Time Warner appendage lost the portal wars by failing to provide appetizing content — is now decentralizing their content components to the point of debranding — jettisoning the AOL name. Given the tarnished AOL brand image, debranding their targeted web properties is essential lest the fractured pieces of the empire carry the lingering stench of failure.

AOL is creating new — and re-branding old — web properties that are largely devoid of any reference to the centralized AOL moniker. By making each web property (product) a separately branded entity, each site can create its own identity and appeal to highly targeted markets. This amplifies the appeal of each, making the properties stronger.

(This is a lesson Yahoo may take to heart – weakness in one business may create a weak brand image for all other components. Hence Yahoo’s reluctance to be acquired by Microsoft lest Yahoo products suffer even more brand debasement.)

Herein is where branding in large organizations is problematic. If one or more products/divisions are strong, there is the potential for that brand strength to carry into the other divisions. For example, HP’s strength in printers has led many people to buy their often unreliable laptops.

But the reverse is true. I used to manage large HP data centers, and had problems with their proprietary MPE operating system — for a while it crashed too frequently for mission-critical work. During that period I rushed to visit a relative in intensive care, and I was not happy to see her hooked-up to a number of HP medical monitoring devices. The weakened MPE brand created in me a negative prejudice for their medical products.

In web properties — where the subject matters presented on a web site may be audience specific (say teenage boys vs. geriatric women) — decentralized branding is essential. Contrary to common belief, segregating the brands does not eliminate potential synergies.

Take SourceForce.com (formerly VA Software) who has a number of technology industry web sites, on which they sell a ton of advertising. They reap significant synergies from different web properties that have at best sporadic cross traffic. The branding needs for their IT manager’s web site is very different than their Linux junkie web site.

Take two of AOLs newly branded properties — Asylum, a site for young men, and WalletPop, a site devoted to personal finance (a topic with which young men are largely unfamiliar). Pulling both of those under the torn AOL umbrella would do neither property any favors. But allow each to tailor the entire brand to their members is favorable … and thus smart.

The marketing issue here is multifaceted. First, you must decide if there is any real cross-over between the product areas. If so, a unified brand might do you some good. If there is no cross-over, then odds are the unified branding will not help in the slightest and may actually hurt.

Second, does the parent brand offer any specific advantage? HP has a strong overall technology brand, and it generally helps all of their product categories. AOL does not, and thus the AOL brand may hurt the individual web products.

Finally, top management has to have the strength to let go. Decentralizing and allowing subordinates make both strategic and tactical decisions about the decentralized products and brands takes guts. But the bigger and more diverse your company is, the more important decentralising will become.

Bookmark to: