Marketers are tuned into social media. According to a recent BtoB Research Report, nearly all (93%) of B2B marketers are engaged in social media marketing. Likewise, another study revealed that the vast majority (84%) of the Fortune Global 100 is active on at least one social media platform. Why all the interest and activity?< Because social media produces results. New data shows that social media is delivering solid, proven ROI. What's more, it's cost-effective, too. In fact, one report concluded that organizations using predominantly newer inbound marketing tactics (blogs, search engine optimization and social media) now experience a cost per lead 62% lower than organizations that use mostly outbound marketing techniques (print, direct mail, etc.). Without question, social media is proving itself increasingly valuable as a way to reach out to and connect with consumers. Plus, it's easy to measure and provides nearly instant gratification -- for both our online audience and for us as marketers, too. Does that mean you should be focusing solely on social media for lead generation? Absolutely not! Social media alone is not enough. Today, your marketing approach -- whether you're B2B or B2C -- needs to fulfill two essential requirements. It needs to be multichannel, and it needs to be integrated. Use multichannel tactics to increase reach The challenge today is to engage your prospects in ways that are varied and unique. You want to be bold. You want to engage customers with conversations and capture audiences with creative and compelling messages. But, don't rely only on social media to accomplish those tasks. Instead, design your campaigns across a variety of channels, so you offer a seamless, compelling experience -- wherever your prospects are, and whenever they choose to engage. You need to reconcile today's latest digital technologies with the traditional offline strategies we've depended on for years. In other words, don't forge ahead so quickly that you sacrifice success on channels you've already mastered. Work on simplifying your message so that you can manage the ever-expanding spectrum of channels and offer your prospects information that's relevant across all touchpoints. Integrate both online and offline channels As marketers, we often create artificial barriers to our customers, but in all honesty, there's no reason to separate your online and offline mix. Success today depends on tearing down those kinds of silos, both internally and externally. Once you do, you'll be able to integrate all the different channels so your messages blend to create an experience that's new and refreshing. Fortunately, a variety of simple-to-use analytics and marketing tools are available to help marketers with both integration and focus. These tools can help determine which initiatives resonate with prospects, so that you can refine your messaging as campaigns progress. A few words of caution here: Remember that consistency is fundamental to effective integration. Variability can erode the value of your product or service, so ensure your branding and messaging is consistent across all channels - traditional and digital. New research continues to show us that social media platforms are becoming more and more valuable for lead generation. But don't make the mistake of pinning all your hopes on this one tactic alone. A few tweets won't cut it. One YouTube video won't launch sales through the roof. Instead, approach social media as one part of an overall plan that includes a variety of integrated online and offline channels. By aggregating and analyzing data, you'll be able to better understand your prospects' buying behaviors, and you'll start thinking strategically about how to apply those insights to grow your business even more.
Maybe you saw the news: that, per eMarketer, Facebook is about to pass another milestone. The research firm said it will surpass Yahoo in display ads by the end of the year, with a 17.7% share of the overall market, a huge jump from the 12.2% share it had last year. On the one hand, this news is a long time coming. When you consider that Yahoo has been in a downward spiral at least since it was temporarily engaged to Steve Ballmer, it seems surprising that it's taken this long for Facebook to pass it by in this most bottom-line-oriented of online advertising categories. On the other hand, I get a little bit queasy in seeing Yahoo and Facebook compared in the commodity-driven world of display advertising. My reaction, instead of being, "You go, Facebook!" is closer to dissatisfaction. If all people in social media -- or on Wall Street -- do is focus on how Facebook stacks up in display ads, then they are missing the point about what Facebook is. Sure, eMarketer is predicting Facebook will rake in more than $2.2 billion in display ads this year, for an increase of more than 80%, and sure, Facebook offers some targeting capabilities that a mere portal doesn't. Still, when marketers are figuring out how to reach people on Facebook, or trying to decide where their online budget should be spent, will they remember these headlines about Facebook-as-display-ad king and figure that's all there is to it? I sure hope not. Facebook may be a nifty place to, as the Facebook Ads home page says, "Choose your audience by location, age and interests," but lots of places do that. It's also about interconnectedness. Theoretically, anyway. But too many advertisers seem to be treating Facebook as just another platform that serves up pixels. In other words, if I see that display ad that says, "Racheal [sic] Ray Loses 32 lbs." one more time I'll plotz. And click on it? Never! Facebook is not Yahoo, or for that matter, Google, the other member of online display advertising's Big Three. It has unique capabilities in allowing advertisers to capitalize on word-of-mouth and in letting advertisers actually hold a dialogue with their customers, rather than just throwing ads at them. That's something most mere display ads don't do. But because of advertisers' display ad mentality, how often do you actually click on a display ad on Facebook? About as often (which is to say, not very much) as you click on display ads on sites that aren't inherently social? That's because advertisers aren't really leveraging Facebook, they are only buying ads on it, albeit billions of dollars worth. No wonder Facebook has set up Facebook Studio, to let advertisers and Facebook demonstrate what marketing on Facebook can mean. For an advertiser, being on Facebook should be about much more than Rachael Ray.
Nielsen takes look at today's American teen, raised in an age dominated by media choices like never before, from the Internet to cable channels to web connected devices galore. Kids Today...
In the 25 years I've lived here, I've never had to say this -- indeed, I never believed I would ever say this -- but last Wednesday, I was ashamed to say I live in British Columbia. I wasn't the only one. I'm guessing the vast majority of the other 4.5 million people that call this Canadian province home felt the same way. In fact, the only people not feeling that way were the idiotic jerks that caused our collective shame. They were the ones using the Canuck's loss to Boston in the Stanley Cup final as an excuse to wreak havoc on downtown Vancouver. "You can't cure stupid." We went into the night holding our collective breathe, hoping the sad scenario of the 1994 riot, after a similar Game 7 loss to the New York Rangers, would not repeat itself. The Olympics had given us hope that we could be placed on a world stage without burning it to the ground. But, as one police spokesperson said, "You can't cure stupid!" Sadly, it proved to be true. B.C. is a breathtakingly beautiful corner of the world, but we definitely have our quota of stupid people, and last Wednesday, they all came onto the streets of Vancouver. You've probably seen news footage of the riot and, if you were disgusted, I get it. I was too. But there's another part of the story that also has to be told. To be honest, I'm not sure if it's a happy ending or an even sadder one. I'd like to hear what you think, but bear with me for another minute or so. Throw the Face"Book" at them Even though it appeared that we had learned nothing in the 17 years since the last riot, there was one significant difference between 1994 and last week's debacle. This year, it went viral. Much of the mayhem was captured by photo or video. Soon, it was posted online. And that's when something surprising happened. For most of our history as social animals, there is not much we can do when some of our herd runs amok. There are reams of research on the psychology of mobs, but one of the common themes is a feeling of invincibility that comes from being part of a faceless, mindless crowd bent on destruction. Most times, there is no response or retribution for individual perpetrators of mob violence. They get off scot free. But not this time. The mob that trashed Vancouver may have been mindless, but they certainly weren't faceless. The next morning, a Facebook page was started by the Vancouver police. They asked anyone with photos or videos of criminals to post them for identification. Within a few hours, the page had captured over 50,000 "likes." Within a few days, the police had over a million pictures and 1000 hours of video uploaded. As people were recognized, they were tagged so police could follow up with charges. The Insurance Corporation of BC offered police use of their facial detection software and crooner Michael Buble, who also hails from Vancouver, even launched a newspaper campaign asking for people to turn the guilty in through social media. Social Justice or Virtual Vigilantes? On hearing that, I felt that finally, justice was being served. We, the often-voiceless majority of law-abiding citizens, could do our part to right the wrongs. But, were we really interested in justice, or did we just want revenge? Is there any difference between the two? One blogger, Dave.ca, said "report the rioters out of civic duty..or revenge..either is fine." Is it? If we are holding onto moral high ground, should we rally and become a virtual "lynch" mob? It's brand-new territory to chart, and I'm personally unsure about which is the right path to take. Let me give you one example. One of the rioters is a provincial water polo athlete and he was soon identified online. His name was made public. His father is a doctor. Since his son's crime was made public, the father has had to suspend his practice and the family has had to move out of their home. Other exposed rioters have been subjected to violent threats and the comment strings are riddled with utterings that are in contention with the riot itself for sheer stupidity. When I started this column, I was convinced it was going to be a bad news, good news story, where social media would play the role of the redeemer. As I did further research on the aftermath, it seems that it's a bad news, good news, possibly worse news story. Much as I'd like to think differently, I'm not sure mob rule, whether it's pursuing mindless violence, or mindless revenge, can ever be a good thing. Social media has a way of exposing all that is human, at scale, and at velocity -- warts and all. How do we handle this new accountability, this new immediate transparency into the dark things we've always kept tucked away?