In Focus

6 stupid marketing mistakes

Mistake 2

Create buzz, but don't let the bee get away.

Many marketers spend a great deal of time talking about the sexier aspects of the advertising and marketing business. Viral campaigns, buzz marketing and "the big idea" are goals that some find more interesting than making money. I love great advertising and great ideas that generate buzz. I also love the fact that great adverting can be shared online with ease. But if you are going to create demand for something through advertising, be sure that you are able to service that demand and capitalize on it at every touchpoint.

A recent Diesel campaign provides an example of demand generated but not answered. The company launched a [warning: adult themed] video that probably made Ron Jeremy look twice. The launch was in support of Diesel's 30th anniversary, and the buzz surrounding this video was tremendous. As you can see, there was a significant spike in the number of queries for "diesel video" on Google.

What if, for example, I had heard about the Diesel video but heard no details about the content? Let's say all I knew was that Diesel had created a must-see online video. I did a search for "diesel video," and the results looked something like this:

 

The brand itself is not present in the organic listing, so the company obviously did not optimize the video for search. In addition, Diesel is not buying the keyword on Google in order to respond to the demand generated by the video.

Responding to demand generation from outdoor advertising can also be an effective way to generate additional interest around a campaign. For example, let's pretend it is a sunny day in New York City and we -- me and you, yeah you -- just finished Sunday brunch. We see the below outdoor ad, but due to our after-brunch haze, we only take note of the billboard's attributes. We were able to remember the medium (AstroTurf on wall) but forgot the message (tune in for Monday Night Football). I say to you, "Do you remember that green AstroTurf ad we saw? What was it for? Can you do a Google search and let me know? I'm really curious."

It should be pretty easy to find on Google, right? Actually, it was not as easy as you think. But in this case, it was not too hard to find something about the billboard.

The third result on Google links to an article about how people vandalized some of these experimental ads and how the materials were potentially hazardous. This does not necessarily shed a positive light on ESPN. You found what you were looking for on Google, but you also may have found something that ESPN would not want you to find.
 
In light of the fact that these billboards were experimental, it was very likely that there would be a lot of chatter about them. It would have been prudent for ESPN to harness the buzz through search. ESPN could have created a series of PPC ads targeted to all of the locations where the billboards lived. For a modest budget, ESPN could have successfully captured the demand it generated (and, in this case, detracted consumers from negative press).

Here's a sample ad that ESPN could have used:

 

Comments

Adam Broitman
Adam Broitman November 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Thanks Ed!

Yes, presence, not site is key! And by web, I am talking mobile extensions too. Eventually it will be a matter of optimizing your entire digital brand identity, but we are not quite there yet :)

Ed Richardson
Ed Richardson November 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Great article Adam, some interesting points raised, from the involvement and commitment required to sustain a social networking campaign through to a somewhat moral obligation to ensure some form of "fair play" when it comes to encouraging uptake.

I agree with some of the comments that follow, but you've answered those, so fair play(again). The comments relating to SEO were on the whole, I thought accurate, you can SEO and existing website, but as you say it is a whole lot easier to consider SEO at the construction phase. In fact its a whole lot better to consider digital media/marketing/publishing/optimising in one big take and usually gets the best results when done so.

I still encounter many people who want to just "refresh their website", when what you really want them to be asking is "how can we improve our web presence".

Look forward to reading more from you. Cheers.

Akhilesh Sabharwal
Akhilesh Sabharwal November 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM

In agreement!!
Rather than using it for simple promotional copy, a roundabout wayof working might get you bet results, as in the case of the Mars Lander experiment

http://toastedbytes.com/2008/11/twitter-an-effective-marketing-channel/

Jonathan Kash
Jonathan Kash November 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Thanks for mentioning my Index... like anything in life, there are good and bad examples to follow. With Twitter, personality and engagement are critical. Take a look at the Molson twitter crew for an example of ppl that "get it."

Metin Odemis
Metin Odemis November 12, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Will do! Thanks.

Adam Broitman
Adam Broitman November 12, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Metin

Thanks for the comments and encouragement!

As for the piece you wanted to add--I would love for you to write something up so I can post it on my blog where I am continuing the conversation.

I would love to do an experiment--you write me a post and in turn, I will plug your company on my blog. The real win is meaningful discourse across media properties!!

http://amediacirc.us/2008/11/12/caution-before-marketing/

Metin Odemis
Metin Odemis November 12, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Adam,

Right on! We especially agree with you on the misuse of Social Channels like Twitter by brands and strategists.

And more attention need to be paid to a Web presence campaign, and not enhancing a Website.

Thanks for summarizing some of the issues we are faced with.

We'd like to also add that User Generated Content campaigns need to be monitored more closely; an all out but directionless Engagement should not be compromised at the expense of Interactivity.

Neil Perry
Neil Perry November 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM

I appreciate the time you put into sharing this information. Many of us use the excuse we are too busy, and that's a real cop out. Is cop out one word or two?
Anyway, thanks. There was a lot of great learning in your article. I look forward to more.

Colin Watson
Colin Watson November 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Ditto for "making the site secure". Build it in from the start - it's cheaper and more effective.

Joseph Szala
Joseph Szala November 12, 2008 at 9:27 AM

@Dave : BREAK OUT THE DEFIBRILLATOR, THIS SITE'S GOING INTO ARREST!

Adam Broitman
Adam Broitman November 12, 2008 at 9:27 AM

I love how Twitter has changed the way we address people--even in comments we use the @ symbol

Dave Morse
Dave Morse November 12, 2008 at 9:17 AM

@Joseph,

Agreed! The very best option is to build it right (or, as you stated, taking vitamins) from the start.

But with the economy wrecking havoc on budgets, many places can't afford to build from ground up (er, uhm, more accurately, they don't want to spend on this), I just felt it was a bit over-the-top to say that sites can't be fixed ... like saying, "The patient is having a heart attack ... but stop trying to save him, he's beyond help". :-)

Joseph Szala
Joseph Szala November 12, 2008 at 9:05 AM

@Dave : I think the title is a little off, but I go back to an adage "Anything worth doing is worth doing right."

You can perform some optimization on a site after the fact, but it's really just band aid work. It's better to have an SEO strategist on the team from the beginning to help craft architecture, file naming, and the various other SEO aspects.

Why perform triage when you could simply have taken vitamins to prevent thinning blood?

Why bail out the water, when you could have built a better boat?

Why....am I posting so many examples. You get the idea.

Adam Broitman
Adam Broitman November 12, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Tristan

Glad you are on board!

Now let's amplify the message to the decision makers.

Adam Broitman
Adam Broitman November 12, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Dave

To be honest, I am totally on your side! That portion was a plug for all the SEO's out there and a bit of linkbait to get people thinking.

I love your analogy and yes, there are ways you can fix a site--but I feel the mentality must change. People must begin to think about these things upfront. Just ask Toby Evers of Morpheus Media. That guy can fix your site up, but if you are planning on building something new, you MUST work with an SEO (or suffer the consequences)

Tristan Bailey
Tristan Bailey November 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM

Nice article Adam, linking it back to how some big companies are still pushing billboard style campaigns to online marketing shows some still have to shift to a commitment to customers and so to engage online with people

Dave Morse
Dave Morse November 12, 2008 at 8:56 AM

I like this article and agree with most of what was said, with the exception of the part about "Existing sites cannot be 'SEOed". I disagree.

To more accurately use your home building analogy, I certainly wouldn't build a house from the top down ... but, I could install 1,000,000 lights on my roof in order to get my house noticed by astronauts in orbit. Isn't that the point of SEO - to get discovered?

I agree with the sentiment that building a site from the ground up with SEO best practices in play is the best option. But all hope is not lost for existing sites! There are plenty of tactics (e.g. even just simple on-page SEO stuff like use of tags, using keywords in "alt" attribute for images, keyword-rich tags, etc.) that can be implemented in order to increase online visibility.

Perhaps the title should be "Existing sites have more trouble getting SEOed than new ones" ... not nearly as catchy as yours, though.

Agree or disagree?

Again, enjoyed the article. I follow Greg Verdino's work a lot, too.

Adam Broitman
Adam Broitman November 12, 2008 at 8:38 AM

Zip

Thanks for the comment, and you are right, the crayon blog has not been updated in a bit. We are working on rebuilding it, but in the mean time, we have 4 avid bloggers:

Me: www.amediacirc.us
Joe Jaffe: www.jaffejuice.com
Greg Verdino: http://gregverdino.typepad.com
Jane Quigley: http://www.janequigley.com/

As you can see we are committed to the space, and the conversation.

Zip Flynn
Zip Flynn November 12, 2008 at 7:55 AM

Great article, Adam. Thanks for articulating so well many of the thoughts buzzing round my head recently.

So... thought I'd check out the Crayon website. And guess what? Your blog hasn't been updated since July! Obviously your colleagues haven't read this piece yet...