DISQUS

Dedication is a good word. The other one is 'patience'. As clients dive into the Facebook page, or Twitter feed, there's a serious desire to ask for the order.

The real life equivalent of an Amway salesman.

As more marketers think they want the magic, they will not only have to learn that the trick takes a lot of work, it also takes a lot of time.

The word diet is classic marketing. It used to mean "What you eat". Now it means "What you don't eat."

Diet is the word we need to take back. We're always on a diet, so it's time to look at said diet on an individual level. On a personal level, this means looking at Labels. We actually buy Heinz ketchup in Canada because Canadian Heinz has no high Fructose Corn Syrup, whereas US Heinz does. And my diet has enough corn already.

One of my clients is a Restaurant chain. They don't offer value meals (whereby the more you get, the more value the meals seems). There's a theory that this is hurting them because when people think value they think quantity (this huge sandwich was only $1.99 when I bought the huge Coke.)

I don't know the answers, but part of the problem is language. And that's marketing, but it's also media.

I was responding to the "...but I suspect for a large number of Americans, it’s the math they do to get to “Palin is okay.” You think it's an anti-expert equation, whereas i think it's a we-needed-something-to-cheer-for equation. And that something was delivered like a glitzy marketing launch. But the rules of Marketing are that the product must fulfill on the promise made in the pitch.

And on the most basic fronts (I sold the jet on e-bay, I stopped the bridge to nowhere), the brand promise didn't back up the actual brand.

Further, I think there's been a conscious lack of faith in experts ever since it was determined that George Bush would be a better guy to have a beer with than Al Gore. In my opinion, George Bush is Sara Palin with a bit more experience. Harsh perhaps, but like I said, I think the we don't like experts meme isn't new.

I completely disagree with you. I think that her popularity isn't that hard to understand when you think of politics as a team game.

The republican team has long been desperate for someone to cheer for. They dislike Bush, and for a long time, they watched the Democrats have a historic primary between two great candidates (that was the media narrative), whereas the media narrative for their primary was that there were a bunch of uninspiring guys on their stage.

Think back to the excitement of Fred Thompson. He was being positioned as the one (a product launch). But it turned out the product didn't quite fulfill on the marketing promise.

Take two is Sara Palin.

The political calculation was that she could give the party something to cheer about. Her speech at the convention was the very definition of a controlled product launch. It was a well-delivered introduction.

And it was timed well. The republican brand hadn't had something to cheer for for a while. So they cheered, in my opinion, a little disproportionately. But again, the last time a virtual unknown was given a prime convention speaking shot, it was Obama, and look where it got him. The unknown product launch is a good, though risky political tactic, but in the short term, it almost guarantees a frenzy of positive thought from the party looking for something positive.

But product launches only promote trial, the product itself has to back up the claims. And as she goes around the country, repeating the product launch speech, the lustre fades. With every Katie Couric interview, the brand fails to back up the launch.

Her poll numbers are dropping. If they continue to drop, it will be, to me, because the reality of the product didn't fit the marketing positioning.

So I suppose that fits with your thinking about us not trusting marketing, but I think for a different reason.

I totally disagree. First, the two examples you give as lefty journalists are blogs. The only prominent person to rip Sarah Palin a new one in a pblic way is the right-wing Dr. Laura.

Obama does have an issue though. Sarah Palin has said she sold a jet on eBay when she didn't, killed a bridge to nowhere when she didn't, tried to reform earmarks when she didn't. Worse still, John McCain now opposes bills that he wrote on campaign finance and immigration.

And yet Obama needs a moment? What he needs to do is claim to have done things are that obvious exaggerations. He needs to out-exaggerate so that he shows the absurdity of her claims.

Seems to me, the answer lies in popping Palin's credibility bubble, not some lefty bloggers.

I think that online will not just save the :30 second spot, I think it will force an entire rethink of the idea of video advertising.

Phone, TV, library, photo album, camera, video camera, video phone, game consul, atlas, encyclopedia, stereo, talk radio.

All the things my daughter uses the computer for. And the list grows.

Dave Kawalec,

I don't disagree that social media is a different tool. However, the post by Chris suggested that the tool isn't right for every brand. We social media people (the ones who know, or think we know how to use Twitter) risk losing credibility if the answer is yes to every question that asks is Social Media right?

We're marketers. And marketing tools aren't right all the time. I say no at my agency, then explain why. It gives the marketing tool more credibility.

Not everything requires a billboard. Not everything requires a radio spot. Social media (while admittedly different and scary, and one-to-one, etc) is merely another tool a marketer can use to help sell something.

Social media is amazing. But it works better when there's a well-established brand. And while people (like Chris) can create pretty solid brands via social media, products and services can't create brands here.

That said, they can create good conversations. And good interactions. And those could lead to a positive impression of the brand. But, this is a tool. And when we figure out the metrics of the tool, it will be an even stronger tool.

This is a good thought. I especially think that Google's friend connect could be the thing that lets brands do your last point (competitors can do the same thing) on their site, outside of Facebook's gate.

That said, Facebook is easy for brands, what isn't so easy is offering a relevant reason to return. Give people something to do, make it interesting, and they'll do it. Your reward will be fans will like you more for making the experience worthwhile. It can be copied, but not if it's relevant to the brand (a hard proposition, I know).

In my opinion, your list requires some 'why's'. A smart social marketer will explain why a client should use the media. And if it's wrong (and there are a number of reason why it might be), then they should explain that. Figure out the goal, then show why X media is right to achieve it. After that, the how is much easier.

Profiles are a big part of our online self. I'm not saying this is a guarantee, but saying your like Coke, or saying your like Pepsi is a part of who you are. It might work better for other brands, but this could be a way in. It's the Facebook theory of Pages.

I think we're still figuring it out. What is it that Facebook has to offer users? When that begins to wane, perhaps we'll visit more niche networks, but I don't think it will be replaced. Consider services like FriendFeed and MyBlogLog, things that aim to connect your networks into one place. As we learn what they are useful for doing, we'll learn if Facebook and MySpace really are Walmart and Target.

I think that's right. I also think that could be more and more right for brands. Check out adidas on Facebook. For company info, they offer a link to their wikipedia page.

We can find each others profiles all over the web now, so you're right we don't need more. Brands have the same options.