Social Saturdays: FourSquare

FourSquare is the ultimate “check in” social media site. The 10 million users check into a location based on GPS positioning on their smartphone. By checking in, a user can access coupons or exclusive Foursquare deals at varying locations in the user’s city. Foursquare can simultaneously post a user’s check-in to Twitter and Facebook promoting that store to the user’s friends. If a user has the most check-ins at one location they become the “Mayor.” Some forward thinking stores provide their “Mayor” with excellent deals, encouraging their customers to visit the store more often.

Marketing Implications Store owners can upload daily deals to the Foursquare listings influencing users to check-in at stores for point of purchase savings. Foursquare is still a growing community mostly used by 18-30 year olds with cash to burn (must have a smartphone and data plan). Providing deals for a store’s “Mayor” is essentially a small-scale rewards program, allowing the company to give back to their most loyal customer(s). Additionally, advertisers already using LivingSocial and GroupOn will find re-posting their deals on FourSquare a convenient addition to their marketing efforts. SM: Personally, I think that this program has a lot of upside, but am up in the air over whether it will be adopted by mainstream users. Yes, it’s fun to compete against friends for points, badges, and what not, however, that cannot and will not support the long term success of this platform. There are two things I believe need to happen to jolt FourSquare to social media prominence. 1) A majority of companies need to embrace FourSquare as a loyalty program and start offering worthwhile rewards to its consumers. 2) FourSquare members need to start writing and reading their friends reviews/tips for various businesses. Without these two progressions in this platform, I fear that FourSquare may never have the societal impact that defines a top tier social media platform. PW: Sean’s two points are absolutely correct. Personally, it’s discouraging that store owners are not providing deals. If there are no deals when you check in, you are just playing against your friends for points. And that is no fun if NONE OF YOUR FRIENDS are playing! Half of my FourSquare friends (some of whom will read this) no longer check in, and have not in months. With users abandoning the service, I feel bad spamming them with my own check ins (but its the only way I get points any longer). It’s an exciting game for the first two weeks, but the novelty wears off. As Sean said, FourSquare must work hard to convince shops to offer deals through the app. More deals will equal more users. In the meantime, I might just switch to SCVNGR soon.

Since we agree with each other, please vote for either "Both," "Neither," or "Who Cares?" Be sure to check out our social media evaluation tab for synopsis of other social platforms.

Ad of the Day: Captain Morgan: 10/21/2011

SM: According to this recent article beer sales are down 1.5% this year, while spirits are up 3.2%, and I have a feeling it has to do with the advertising. How many times can we see a bunch a guy standing around doing god-knows-what with beer in their hand? Spirit ads are breaking that cycle by creating brand personalities through storytelling. This ad establishes the suave swagger that I’ve come to associate with Captain Morgan. By depicting the brand icon in a narrative, the consumer can clearly differentiate the brand identity from other liquors and determine if that’s the image they want their alcoholic beverage to emulate. Although I could do without the corny ending, two seconds of guys standing around drinking is a heck of a lot better than 30 seconds. PW: The facts don’t lie: beer brands are suffering. When I think of recent alcohol advertising I think of Johnnie Walker and Jameson. But there are beer brands with great storytelling campaigns running right now including Dos Equis’ “The Most Interesting Man In The World,” Stella’s “She Is A Thing Of Beauty,” and Sam Adams’ “Take Pride In Your Beer.” The article highlights another issue: unemployed blue collar workers. When the lites’ target audience has no money to spend, of course the sales will plummet Another issue may be healthy living trends. Dieting commercials are now specifically targeting men; all those football analysts are losing weight with nutrisystem. And, although proven not true, common folklore states spirits have less calories than beer. Maybe the brewing industry needs to try and abolish the term “beer belly.” What do you guys think? Be sure to stop by tomorrow for the inaugural Saturday Social Spotlight during which we will analyze FourSquare.

Daily Post 10/21/11: Is it bad that marketers know more about us than our mothers?

Article: http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/phone-mom/230507/

Quick Summary: Smartphone adoption has been the fastest of any technology. Ever. It is close to 50% in the United States, and could be as high as 90% next year. When using a smartphone’s apps and browser, you are generating data for your carrier and the phone’s maker. This data mining is used to re-target you with advertising based on the content you view online and in apps. The constant information your phone is gathering about your preferences means these data companies probably know more about you than your own mother. And yet, with new innovations like swiping our phones to pay at checkout or starting our cars with a downloaded app, it is likely consumers will share even more data in the future. PW: This article is the writer’s opinion about the future, but he does back it up with solid facts. People rely on their Smartphones to provide constant contact to work, friends, and current events. But not many people understand what they are giving up in exchange for this service, their privacy. Having this wealth of data about your interests and purchases is a marketer’s dream. They can now predict your needs better than ever before and serve you ads you might, actually, not ignore. Personally, I find this incredibly creepy that random companies are compiling a “file” on me? Gathering every bit of data so they can sell me the new Hugo Boss cologne? Man, their right. I do need a new bottle, but I don’t want them to know that! It limits my freedom to make the purchase when I want to. Okay, seeing that limited time offer correspond right when you actually need the product is great. But imagine that happening all the time. It won’t be special any longer. It effectively puts the brands in control of your purchasing power. That is the one thing that makes the consumer king, the choice to buy when he/she wants to buy. By knowing exactly what you want when you want it, then giving it to you, the brand has taken control. SM: I’m concerned with the amount of information compiled on me through new technology as much as the next guy, BUT it has nothing to do with understanding my interests. With the amount of information I give out over the web for purchases, certain websites, and social media sites, I feel it’s inevitable I’ll eventually fall victim to identity theft, again. As far as trying to analyze my personality, heck share that information with me, I’d love to see what you think of me. The purpose of advertising is to inform a certain person that there is a product that satisfies a need they have. When an ad actually addresses a current need you have it’s NEVER annoying, but actually quite helpful. (Hence, why Point of Purchase advertising is so effective.) I love how I get an email from Ticketmaster when my favorite bands come to town, just imagine if they could do that without me telling them my favorite bands. Envision this slightly exaggerated down-the-road hypothetical, Old Spice based on my purchase history and personality will know when I will need a new stick of deodorant. Using this information, they are able to send me an ad at that time detailing a new deodorant product, accompanied by a coupon for the closest store to me selling the product. Who wouldn’t find that amazingly helpful? People seem to forget that ADVERTISING IS GOOD FOR SOCIETY. Without advertising we all might still be listening to CD players instead of iPods. The better advertising gets at targeting their consumers, the less consumers will consider it annoying and spam. We get no benefit from the hundreds of so-called Facebook Friends who know where we ate dinner every night this week. Why do we care if a brand is using that community knowledge to try to discover and satisfy our future needs? Who do you guys agree with? Vote and let us know with a comment.

Ad of the Day: Playstation: 10/20/2011

PW: I may have a bias; I love video game marketing. This campaign has quickly become one of my favorites in one short week. Seeing all the famous game characters in one room, Nathan Drake (Uncharted), a Little Sister (Bioshock), and even that dude from God of War, is truly awesome. And the fact they are all together saluting the gamer is great positioning. Most video games are marketed at the gamer, as the gamer would see it/play it/experience it. This campaign, instead, presents how the characters view the gamer. He/she is a true hero! The person that lead (toggled) them to vast achievements. Playstation is rewarding their customers with praises from the characters the gamers adore the most. Confession: I am a 360 owner, but Playstation’s exclusive titles call to me. I want to play Uncharted, right.now! This campaign may have just convinced me to invest in a PS3.

SM: I happened to catch this commercial on TV yesterday, and my first thought was “Wow, this is a really well thought out cool commercial.” Great production, great acting, great message BUT I didn’t know who 75% of those characters were. As a customer retention commercial, this was amazing, as a persuasive advertisement, not so much. If you have never owned a Playstation this commercial will do little to convince you to purchase one.

Who do you agree with? Or leave a comment telling us we are both crazy.

Ad of the Day: Sean: Branded Entertainment

Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division from President Bill Clinton

SM: I hate to be a broken record, but here is just another example of solid branded entertainment.
In one day, as the featured video on Funny or Die’s home page, “Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division” has amassed upwards of 135,000 views.
Why is this considered successful? Functioning as a general awareness initiative, the collaboration of A-List actors were able to cohesively integrate the key facts of the Foundation into the overall sketch. By the end of the video, you’ve definitely caught some of the facts and now possess a general understanding of the organization (which is the purpose of an awareness campaign.) Those 135,000 people, who have clicked on the video, opted-in to hearing the Clinton Foundation’s message. What more could a company want from a marketing venture?

PW: This ad is an excellent piece of writing, but it is NOT an awareness campaign. It is a call to action. At the end, they ask you to donate to the fund. The success of this campaign will not be measured on total views, but instead on total GREEN. So, does the message persuade you to donate? Not me. What will the money be used for? The ad barely mentions the past initiatives, and the message is lost under the star power. This is the problem with most celebrity endorsements. Personally, seeing Jack Black improvise a theme song doesn’t make we want to donate, it makes me listen to Tenanious D. (And why is Matt’s head shaved? What his next movie?) For branded celebrity endorsements, the product must at least share as much of the spotlight as the celebrity if not more (See Kobe’s Black Mamba for Nike). Advertisers rarely use celebrities effectively. Think about it like this. If you want to see Kobe Bryant play, the Lakers’ front office makes you pay for a ticket. Same for movie stars. We are willing to pay to see them in action. But, what this? We can see them in action without paying? Oh, you want us to pay (donate) AFTER seeing them? Fat chance.

Daily Post 10/19/11: Pepsi/X Factor launch new co-viewing platfrom

Article: http://adage.com/article/news/pepsi-launches-social-viewing-platforms-x-factor/230473/?utm_source=mediaworks&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage

Quick Summary: X Factor’s sponsor, Pepsi, will launch its social campaign built around the show’s content this week. The campaign is comprised of two social platforms. One, called Pepsi Pulse, is a visualization of trends within the online conversation, like a beating heart when three commentators like competitor, Tiah Tolliver. The other is a conversation stream similar to Twitter called Pepsi Sound Off. It provides not only a constant stream of comments in real time, but also perks when your comment is liked the most. Your comment could even appear on a Pepsi commercial during that same show. Pepsi hopes the platforms are a hit, so they can use them for other events such as The Oscars or festival streams like Coachella.

PW: On first thought, I didn’t see the point to building a new destination for socializing about a TV show. We have GetGlue. Well not many people know about that site yet... wait, we have Twitter! But the article brings up a good point: when you tweet, ALL your followers see it. If half of your followers don’t care about X Factor, they will not appreciate your comment entering their stream. By providing a platform specific to X Factor, Pepsi can attract (and data mine) only the loyal X Factor socializers. It is a brilliant way to attract their target audience THEN gather substantial data about the audience to use in their brand promotion. The tough part will be attracting users to the platforms. People are used to Twitter and Facebook, so it might be overload to adopt another stream (see our Google+ analysis). With that said, I think this will work and will help the Pepsi brand because as an avid watcher of X Factor, I want to discuss the show with other fans. Every viewer is judging the contestants alongside Simon (just from their couch not his million dollar mansion.) This new platform gives them a way to connect to other home judges without alienating their friends/followers, who just plain don’t care about a silly singing competition. Pepsi will benefit from “hosting” this conversation with the branded content surrounding the stream and the insights it gathers from “mining” the stream.

SM: Social TV/Co-viewing is the new hot topic in advertising, but I think that it will take time to truly catch on. The concept is based on the ability of television users to multi-task while watching a show. The nature of shows like X-factor, award ceremonies, and political debates present a small inconsistent mental engagement that can allow the viewer the chance to successfully multi-task. I like the platform that will present the general trends, but for anyone who’s tried to simultaneously use twitter and watch a show understands the information overload of just irrelevant tweets. I think for this to gain momentum, either the program in question needs to be watched on a computer or this platform needs to simultaneously function on a television set, which for the time being is not the case. Until that day comes, I project this concept will also suffer a major setback when it’s tried for shows like Dexter, AHS, or even the Office where if you don’t give your full attention you’ll miss something. Overall, there’s definitely something innovative here, but I project only a small group of viewers to actually adopt this technology at the current time.

Let us know what you think by voting and/or leaving comments. Vote:
Patrick if you like this new social platform and plan on trying it
Or
Sean  if you aren’t sold on the idea of this new social concept

Check back later today for the Ad of the Day

Ad of the Day: Google: 10/18/11

Google: Parisian Love

PW: This 2010 Superbowl ad proves Google knows itself better than any of its users. Having done very little paid advertising, Google entered the fray with this landmark ad using a soft sell technique. The reason Google was doing very little advertising prior was, well, they didn’t need to. It is the online destination for search, and their adwords program comprises over 80% of the paid search market share. So why do a commercial?

The one thing that Google had not become was human. Sure, it had loyal customers, but only because it was/is the best search engine available. Its ad revenue rises substantially each year, but only because marketers see more value in digital spending on Google’s Adwords and Adsense programs. But how does a brand convince their loyal customers to stay loyal? This is where branding played its hand, and Google showed a straight flush. Telling the touching story of love abroad, Google became more than a search engine, it became a dream maker. The ad provides us a new perspective on using Google. It is more than just a means (query) to an end (results), it is our trusty online companion, a guidebook for life. The search engine “understood” human connection and understanding the consumer’s desires is key to retaining his/her loyalty.

P.S. This campaign’s message continues with Google’s newest campaign: The Web Is What You Make Of It

SM:Honestly, my main beef with this add is the tagline, “Search On.” Really google. You just spend millions of dollars on an ad to create an emotional connection with the user and the take away message is “search on.” What emotional connection does “search on” garnish? How does “search on” maintain its relevance across Google's many product lines? This is by far one of the cheesiest taglines I’ve heard in awhile and don’t really understand what purpose it serves. I think its the equivalent of Verizon or AT&T having the tagline “Keep Calling.”
Otherwise, I’m just not a huge fan of Google’s attempt at creating this emotional connection because I think it sells the search giant short. Don’t get me wrong, despite my dissatisfaction, the campaign was a great success and definitely achieved it’s goal of showing the average internet user how much easier Google makes their lives. However, being Google, I’ve learned to hold them to a higher standard, and I believe this ad limits itself to focusing only on the search engine part of Google. Google is THE leader in the Internet industry because of how it is constantly innovating and adding new services to its portfolio. I personally feel that the same people the Parisian ad is targeting don’t know that Google owns blogger, youtube or for that matter have ever tried using Google Calendar or Translate. I think featuring those product in this ad could have better served Google's purpose.
My takeaway from this ad is: a simple tagline is not always better. Let us know what you think by voting below. We’ll be back tomorrow with a new blog post and ad of the day because we are ADding to the Argument, “Debate on.”

Daily Post 10/18/11: The IGen

Article: http://adage.com/article/news/igen-influential-peers-household-buying-decisions/230427/ Daily Post: IGen Influential With Peers: 10/18/11 Quick Summary: This article stresses the importance of the newly coined “IGen’s,” children 4-16 yrs old, influence on their peers and parents’ spending. It also should be noted that this demographic garners an average of $10-39 in weekly spending money from jobs and allowances. The IGen is equipped with an array of new media devices, i.e. smartphones, laptops, ipads, and gaming consoles, leading them to spend less time watching television than previous generations. Thus, marketers should try to focus on reaching this generation online. SM: Thank you Ad Age for stating the obvious. Is there anyone who didn’t know that kids in grade school are highly influenced by their peers? And was there ever a time when a child didn’t scream and annoy their parents to buy what the cool kids had, and they didn’t give in and buy the damn toy? One kid got a (insert elementary fad, i.e tomagachi, yo-yos, pokemon, etc...) and everyone in school had one until the tyrannical institution banned them for (insert lame principle loud speaker message, i.e. theft, distraction, Tommy tried to flush Jenny’s beanie baby down the toilet, but it got clogged, flooding the east wing, resulting in Mrs. Friendly to fall and sprain her ankle and Mrs. Smiley to knock over the classroom pet cage, releasing 5 chicks and a duck into the school. Also if anyone sees a chick please inform the main office right away.) There are two big stories to be mentioned here. 1) The IGen is more technologically savvy and sophisticated than anyone gives them credit for. By growing up with an established Internet media, this generation is able to choose their entertainment with greater freedom. Instead of being stuck choosing the best show on Nick, Disney, and PBS, the IGen can search the web to find the most entertaining and interesting content for their age group. COMPANIES NEED TO START TREATING THE IGEN LIKE THEY WOULD COLLEGE KIDS. There is an ability to interact with kids on the social media landscape unlike anything before. You still need your product to appear cool, but with an array of interactive media the possible options to achieve this goal are endless. 2) The increased interactivity among the IGens through social media has resulted in an increased speed by which trends spread and can be monitored. Social media allows this generation to assess the current trends in a real-time manner, making the evaluation of the cool trend much easier to diagnose. (Imagine how much faster stupid trends like the bleached-blond boys hairstyle and avril lavigne fishnets would have ended if it’s criticism was spread throughout Facebook.) While social media helps the IGen establish its own trends, marketers now have the ability to gauge these trends and react accordingly. PW: Above, Sean points to two insights advertisers should learn from the article.

1) The IGen is more tech savvy then we give them credit. Correct. but I would go further to say: they are the most tech savvy of all the generations. As the article says, they spend almost double the amount of time on their mobile devices than the average Millennial. Is this a good thing for advertisers? Heck no. Spending time with a medium helps you understand all the ways it communicates, including advertising. Every Millennial knows there’s a right side bar of Facebook advertising and so WE IGNORE IT. Expand this “talent” to all social platforms and you have a Gen Zer’s vision. With these kids understanding the message platform better than you, how will you get them to digest your message? If it wasn’t for child labor laws, all major corporations would be hiring these tweens for buko bucks. I think the best bet for marketers looking to influence this generation is through content laden messaging. Games and contests. Perhaps build a contest around the tweens making branded content: t-shirts, hats, wristbands, etc? Sean is right to think advertisers need to target this generation in the digital space, but they should not treat them like college kids. This generation is smarter than those Millennials and advertisers need to think at a tween’s lofty level.

2) We all know these kids set the fads and trends. Heck, how many times has #BiebersFutureWife trended on Twitter? Tweens set the agenda in the social space especially leading the conversation when it comes to celebrities, TV shows, and music. Brands should be very wary to enter these conversations. One “lame” comment and the brand is part of the out-crowd. Brands should use brand ambassadors within the age group to help promote the message (and some brands already do). These ambassadors have much more influence than the brand’s past youth ambassadors because they harness the social power of the web. This way the brand enters the conversation with the most influential message: peer-endorsed.

Lastly, an insight that Sean looked over. Advertisers need to realize how much TWEENS INFLUENCE THEIR PARENTS. No, I’m not talking about what they parent’s buy for the child’s use; I’m talking about what the parents buy for the family’s use. Do you think that IPad was purchased without the gentle nagging of the 8-year-old casual gamer? Do you think the decision to buy a PS3 over a 360 was the sole reasoning of the Tetris-playing Father? Children today influence a family’s entertainment platform purchases more than ever before. Maybe advertiser’s should market their TVs, tablets, and other products to the kids specifically. That way when their parents inevitably ask them how to make a web purchase, the advertiser’s product is top of mind for the kid.

Let us know what you think and check back later for the Ad of the Day

Ad of the Day: Red Stripe: 10/17/11

RED STRIPE: REGGAE:

SM: I figured for my first ad campaign of the day I’d start with possibly my favorite TV spot of all-time. This ad didn’t win any awards or quadruple sales, but I love how it chose to separate Red Stripe from the over-saturated beer market by staying true to itself. It gave homage to the beer’s Jamaican roots in a quirky humorous fashion, while establishing the brand’s spokesperson. The spot had a very catchy song coupled with a clear message: “Red Stripe is beer, Hooray Beer!” Now who can’t agree with that statement.

PW: This campaign is quite memorable. Red Stripe has definitely positioned itself as the odd duckling in the beer category. The ads tell vignettes about the brand’s Jamaican identity, which is cute. BUT CUTE IS ALL IT IS. Does it leave me with a positive feeling about the brand? Slightly. Does it make me want to drink Red Stripe? Not really. Have I ever ordered a Red Stripe? No. Although the campaign is memorable, it is not top of mind. Besides when has Jamaica been about anything besides illicit substances and Reggae music? Okay, you’re right, AND the Jamaican bobsled team.
-

Daily Post 10/17/11: Droids for a Cent

ARTICLE: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394726,00.asp

Verizon’s “Hit Em While Their Down” Marketing Strategy: Droids for A Cent

Upon reading about this promotion last week, I was immediately crushed by the fact I am a Verizon subscriber. Droid Smartphones for only a penny? A lousy cent? How could the brand’s value have dived quicker than the RIM’s Playbook? Not to worry folks, Android is as strong as ever. Ice Cream Sandwich is coming soon(!), but that is for another discussion.

What this promotion means is Verizon is ruthless and brilliant. Last week, both Apple and Research In Motion (Blackberry’s maker) courted the media for vastly different reasons. With Apple’s announcement of the Iphone 4S and RIM’s rolling “berryouts,”  the media couldn’t care less about the little green robot. So Verizon throws out this undeniable deal promoting their Droid phones, which hits the consumer in the sweet spot: the pocket book. It beckons the distraught Blackberry user to try a different (and better) smartphone software. It dares the IPhone user to waste $300 on a new phone that ISN’T EVEN the IPhone 5, when they can get a brand new Droid Bionic for a mere cent.

But it really targets those suffering AT&T users, poor consumers who love their IPhones so much they will deal with terrible service and dropped calls. Verizon perfectly timed this promotion to coincided with AT&T users ending their 2-year contracts. Now they can transfer to a better carrier on the cheap. This way, Verizon draws consumers away from AT&T with a 2-year agreement, and may sell some more IPhones if their newbies don’t like the Droid. Now, if only Verizon was this generous with its current subscribers, I would have a new Droid Bionic. Guess I’ll stick it out with the Droid II a little while longer.

-PW

SM: Despite Patrick’s optimism, I can’t help but hear this news and say what’s the catch? Yes, on the surface this promotion is great PR to counter your competitors and maybe it’ll help steal some customers. However, what does it say if you’re selling a product for a penny in a market where the standard cost for smartphones range in the hundreds. What would the perceived value of a Lexus be if they sold it at a Toyota Level? No matter what way you look at it, when you see a Droid phone for a penny and an iPhone for $300 you’re automatically going to assume the iPhone is a better choice. Yet that’s just the tip of the Ice Berg. Verizon justifies this deal because it locks in the consumer with the company for two years. Are they overcharging so much for service that it’ll make up all the money they lose on the sale of the phone?

In the end, the true losers are Verizon customers. The company should be doing more to focus on improving their relationships with current users than spending money on consumers who are going to jump ship in two years for the next great deal. Not to worry though, these new customers will be as angry as true Verizon customers when they realize this is simply a ploy to get rid of excess inventory before the holiday releases hit the shelves. Just two summers ago my friend used one of these types of promotions to get the original Droid. Two weeks later, Verizon announced the upcoming release of the Droid 2, which by using a phone upgrade I got a month later for only $50 dollars more than he paid. Closing words: consumers beware!


Let us know who you agree with and be sure to check back tomorrow for a new post and Ad of the Day.