Disqus - Latest Comments for mrhames

Re: Social Media Isn’t a Job? I’m Not So Sure.

ScottHepburn — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:13:51 -0000

Ready, fire, aim -- eternally useful!

Actually, I'm one of those rare people who doesn't mind a little experimentation by companies curious about this stuff. Making mistakes isn't a bad thing if you learn something. Even proceeding without a game plan is okay, especially while you're learning. Heck, it's probably BETTER to delay your planning until you've dabbled a bit to understand the subject matter of your plan.

Still, your point is valid: At some point, you've gotta progress from "Good enough" to "Thoughtfully crafted to achieve specific goals."

Re: Social Media Isn’t a Job? I’m Not So Sure.

mrhames — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:43:40 -0000

More than a decade ago, brands had to have a website. They didn't know why, they just had to have a website (their competition had one). So they hired programmers who knew how to use this newfangled hammer, but they didn't really think through the whys. And in a twist that always bugged me, they didn't hire copywriters to write websites.

Not many people really thought about the bullet points you listed above when doing their new site. They just did it.

And here we are again, with people just doing it. Your list should be used for everyone, but it isn't. Especially when companies turn to the "I 5 digit followers on Twitter" to launch social media campaigns.

A website is a marketing tool. A social media campaign should be too.

Re: Location, Location, Location

mrhames — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:17:40 -0000

Consider Google. Google launched with a simple advertising idea -- if you offer a cheap lunch, place your ad in front of people who search "cheap lunch".

At first though, Google took anyone's money. They let the market dictate the price. If a person bought Cheap Lunch to sell boats, then who's to stop them? Google? If the guy is willing to pay $6 for a click, they are willing to sell a boat guy "Cheap Lunch".

Except, Google is also a tool. And people use it because it offers good (read relevant) results. Google realized this and incorporated a Quality Score. It's a confusing thing that essentially measures relevance of ad with landing page and keyword. The more relevant the ad, the cheaper and higher it is. Thus, google rewards relevance because it has to. If things stayed irrelevant, we'd start to use Ask (or Bing).

Now, take location based ads. Unlike the mailbox (it can't filter out content, it's just a thing), the handheld is battling other handhelds for your 2-year contract. If they over spam, that's a reason to leave.

So, fear not, I think.

Re: Why We Need Marketing General Contractors

nicolaes — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:52:28 -0000

I love the idea of a full service agency but feel strongly that you can't be Number One at everything.

There are so many disciplines that come together what do you do the best? Focus on that and bring in the best to do the rest?

Nicola

Re: Why We Need Marketing General Contractors

mrhames — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:30:28 -0000

I see two options:

1. To use your metaphor, why can't it fall upon the home builder to manage the players? In this instance, the AOR will need to manage the players, rein them in, and ensure that everything stands together.

Okay. I'm not naive enough to think this is simply going to happen, egos being egos and whatnot.

However, and this brings me to #2, I think that the silos are actually the problem. They create the need of a general contractor, so instead of adding a function, why not eliminate silos?

If the plumber and the carpenter are on the home builders staff, then all the 500K goes to them anyway.

So a full service agency consolidated at the bottom line would forgo the need for a General Contractor.

And I just happen to know one of them, which is why I love where I'm at. :)

Re: Born Digital

mrhames — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:40:27 -0000

I did a presentation on this topic once. My argument was that marketing before the web used to be geographical based (it was geo-targeted). Web 1.0 promised to change it, but didn't because we're still geographically centered people. My best friends growing up lived on my street, went to my school, or lived in my town. I lost touch with them, but thanks to Facebook, reconnected with the ones I wanted to (and some I didn't).

But my daughter could easily be best friends with someone in Australia. Or Toronto. With Skype, Twitter, and the things we can only imagine, she will never really have the option of losing touch with people. Their lifetime gmail or yahoo mail account will be in her address book along with their Facebook Vanity, LinkedIn url, etc.

And while I use the names of things we all know, Facebook, Linkedin, etc, it's more likely that she'll connect to people on a tool that hasn't been invented. Wave 3.0.

And these people will think differently about physical space, and geographical space. I'm not sure what that will mean, but it will be cool.

Re: Field of Dreams Redux

mrhames — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:22:32 -0000

I think social media is a good test of the brand's historical advertising. Good advertising history = instant fans and success. (We saw that with one of our clients. We got a whole bunch of fans doing all the work for us, and next thing you know, the next AE wants a Facebook page for their [insert something like toilet paper to make point].

A strong brand is really just an affinity for the product. to use your metaphor, the pre-prom voting. Awareness advertising thus creates the arena for social media. It doesn't create awareness, at its best, it gives those with awareness a place to hang.

Re: Questions We May Stop Asking (In Our Lifetime)

mrhames — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:58:15 -0000

Want to reconnect?

Got a picture of your kids?

Was George Clooney really in Return of the Killer Tomatoes?

Re: Do You Have to DO Social Media to Work IN Social Media?

tacanderson — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:37:53 -0000

Well actually the guy who ran Obama's campaign was a founder at Facebook. But I agree that there are a ton of opportunities to engage and harness the non Twitter crowd.

Re: Do You Have to DO Social Media to Work IN Social Media?

mrhames — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:18:52 -0000

I think the guy who ran Obama's campaign had little experience in social media. I think it's about marketing, plain and simple. The NYtimes is a strong brand that needs to harness the reguklar readers and commentators and turn them into more newspapers or eyeballs, or login only places that have a Flickr-like fee. You don't need to be a Twitter user to see that.

Re: Walking The Fine Line Of The Personal Brand

mrhames — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:40:23 -0000

Does your agency have a social media policy? We're an ad agency trying to encourage the use of social media to understand it better. but we're crafting a policy so people know where the company stands. Almost like a dress code, but not.

More like a don't be stupid code. And in an time where 30-something people can put food up their bum and allegedly pretend to serve it to customers, anything goes, right? Especially since they thought it would be funny to film it, and add it to YouTube.

Re: Enterprise 2.0 Needs a FriendFeed

mrhames — Wed, 20 May 2009 09:36:01 -0000

There's a chance that this solution is a hacked version of e-mail. Right now, I work in an agency with 7 different offices in the US. We're connected via phone (four digit dialing to any office), e-mail, and Microsoft messenger. We also have sharepoint, that has the build in blog, wiki, and pages for work groups, clients, etc (we're somewhat paperless).

If chat were built into mail (like Google and Yahoo have done), then we could, in theory, lose messenger, which already synchs with e-mail. Further, the updating of content on Sharepoint can be tracked into a lifestream of sorts that people could subscribe to.

Re: Twindling Users?

mrhames — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:28 -0000

I think they are missing a tool like Tweetdeck, Twirl, etc. The web-only Twitter experience is somewhat lame. These people joined, followed Oprah and their favorite celeb, and realized it's only navel gazing that one has to hit refresh to do.

Boring.

Re: From Email Culture To Stream Culture: Out Of The Inbox

mrhames — Wed, 06 May 2009 09:20:58 -0000

I just did a blog post about how social networks needed e-mail grow. Early on, we got e-mails when we got Twitter DM's, or Facebook mail (which is also private), but now that we're used to looking for things like this, we don't need e-mail to nudge us anymore. So e-mail needs to rethink it's connection to an open world of streams. I think gmail and yahoo mail are trying, and since they have huge numbers of people in their potential communities, I'm interested to see where it goes.

Re: I Like Search

mrhames — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:08:32 -0000

always remember that google is first and foremost a tool for people. We say "google it" because google works.

They got away from that a little in the early SEM days when they would sell irrelevance for money. But marketers just need to remember to look at google and help it deliver the best answers. We're getting to a place where "cheap lunch" should return a map. Google needs businesses to optimize around what they are.

Re: A Platform Like Any Other

mrhames — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:35:55 -0000

There's this band that I used to love. The best part about them was I could watch them in a small place, and i felt close to them. The problem was, they signed this deal to a record label, and then everyone heard about them. Now they play arenas. I miss my experience with them. Why did they have to get popular?

Re: The Ten Commandments of Content Marketing

mrhames — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:23:29 -0000

Damn, Disqus just ate my post.

Alas, my point was in reply to Beth. Agencies can offer scripts to help in the transparent management of a social media initiative. Take Twitter. Nameatclient could get a script of things to post to start conversations and build buzz. Responses are easier. Responding is infinitely easier than starting a conversation.

Content. It's what we agency peeps can do to add value.

Re: Too many agencies spoil the brand

mrhames — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:02:27 -0000

I've sat in the room when a client invites all agency partners to solve the digital conundrum. BTW, I agree with the notion that the 'above the line' agencies are better at the execution. They care about the tone, the voice, etc.

But I disagree about the 'big idea'. I think the client that tries a lot of little ideas will do better in this world. I'm not saying that the big idea is dead, I just think the process is due for an update.

Re: Experts

mrhames — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:03:07 -0000

I sat and talked to a local soc media expert. He has thousands of Twitter followers, and a large brand hired him to be a soc media consultant.

He didn't have the first clue about marketing. To him, it was all conversations, etc. Which is all well and good, but brands aren't in it for conversations, unless one can tell them why a conversation will earn them money (and as you suggest, many people don't want conversations).

So you get these supposed Twitter experts, and/or bloggers, who don't consider how paid media works with earned media (btw, some do. Many do, but there are ones who don't, and they preach 'new ways')

And where does that leave us? Another potential silo for clients that already have 5 agency partners in the room competing for the money.

I think I need a vacation.

Re: Skittles New “Website” Leaves a Bad Taste for Some | Social Media Explorer

Steve Cerruti — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:36:02 -0000

Yes, I can see a candy brand needing to worry about SEO and maintaining a website. Take M&M's, they use the web to extend their brand via information about their racing team, through recipes, products that are seasonal and not readily available and to support their ecommerce effort. The website build brand loyalty by having games which can easily be exported into social networks.

I can easily see M&M extending their brand into social networks, especially since they have already created highly recognizable personalities to front their brand.

Just because Skittles did a half hearted job doesn't mean it isn't a good idea.

Re: Skittles New “Website” Leaves a Bad Taste for Some | Social Media Explorer

KatFrench — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:01:10 -0000

I agree that SEO probably isn't a high priority for them. But I wanted to put the caveat out there in case someone who DOES need search to get their business found was thinking of imitating them.

(Especially since they're already imitating someone else. **cough**Modernista**cough**)

Re: Skittles New “Website” Leaves a Bad Taste for Some | Social Media Explorer

mrhames — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:28:36 -0000

Why would Skittles need a website? Or SEO? Do people who are looking for a snack really type "what should I snack?" into google and expect the website Skittles to deliver the answer?

Impulse purchases need to think of different ways to get attention online. Websites aren't it. For a long time, we did websites because we had to. A marketing tool one has to do? Crazy.

As people test the idea of a digital presence, they should look at individuals for inspiration. Think about the digital presence of a Jason Falls. Can a brand replicate that? I think so, with some obvious differences.

I've been trying to get one of my clients to incorporate a digital presence, and kill their website. it wasn't going to be executed like this, but in essence, it will be this.

Re: Does Creativity Still Matter?

mrhames — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:05:21 -0000

Good products never needed advertising. good products that do go mass (Starbucks), run into the problem of letting the consumer define them. Is starbucks hurting now because you and I have a different vision of the brand (since we were allowed to craft our own vision?) I could talk for years about the iPod (a truly revolutionary product) was the real thing that took Apple from accepting money from Microsoft to making ads busting their chops.

I read the manifesto this weekend, and planned to write about it. My thinking all along is that we have to cut direct marking thinking from online. Even though your customer is a click away, the click should not be the thing that the effort is judged on. Metrics matter, but clicks shouldn't be the only one.

I'm glad this conversation is going. Thanks for writing about it.

Matt.

Re: TV On My Browser

mrhames — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:07:36 -0000

Like I said, I've been thinking about watching TV online for more than a year. And two weeks after writing the post below, I was asked to do a "POD" on ABC.com. Seriously.

This is my take on why watching TV online is different from offline.
http://tinyurl.com/dx5jc3

This is most of the posts tagged abc.com.
http://tinyurl.com/dxwv26

I think the network dot coms were hampered by the writer's strike for a while. As in, doing things to make more money online was contrary to the stance they took in the strike. But the strike is well over, and to me, it's time for networks to help advertisers.

Re: TV On My Browser

tangerinetoad — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:36:18 -0000

@matthames - I appreciate your not wanting to turn the comment into a
self-promo, but I would very much like it if you'd give us some links
so that people can read further about this.

@anca - the London ad scene reminds me a lot of the comments in the
Eric Silver article - a lot of people wishing the last 15 years had
never happened