It’s My PeRspextive

This week the main discussion centered around mobile phone and how to evaluate the campaigns using evaluation methods already in place. I had a bone to pick with one of the evaluation surveys that focused on speed of interaction. I don’t think the marketer has much control of the of the speed and interaction of the message. The phone and mobile plans play a big part in the interaction success of a campaign. Below is my discussion from this week. Read the discussion and let me know if you agree. This week I am offering a great prize. Take my survey about what type of phone you have and you could win big!

Since a good number of you chose this measurement, I decided to do a grouped response. I question how effective marketers can make the text messaging experience in terms of responsiveness, download delay, and speed of use. These measurements are more directed to the mobile device itself and the mobile service.

With the Palm Pre, I am able to search multiple sites at the same time, download information in record mobile speeds, listen to voice text messages, etc. However, my husband with his LG LX260 can not get the same experience even though we subscribe to some of the same mobile subscriptions.

I have Sprint service that offers high speed mobile Internet connection, while my best friend has a Metro PCS service with poor Internet connection. So we have a different user experience with our mobile subscriptions.

I am pretty sure marketers take this into account with many mobile campaigns formatted as standard SMS campaigns. Even though many consumers are equip with smart phones, many are not.

To clearly measure the effectiveness of what I like to call RMM (rich mobile message), you have to target smart phone users to answer:

  • I expect to see hyperlinks clearly.
  • I expect the e-mail layout to scroll easily.
  • The e-mail was as easy to navigate on mobile as on my PC.
  • It is convenient to access articles on my mobile.

Traditional phone users are a primary audience when considering of smaller screens and a simplified message or design is necessary.



This week’s discussion spoke to my heart. Evaluating emerging media technologies is becoming the hot button topic. Everyone wants to know if what they are doing is working and if it is working then how is it working, why is it working, and how can we make it better.  I feel like there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Learning how other mediums are measured for effectiveness allows marketers to get to the core essence of evaluation. I wanted to demonstrate how adapting other studies for other mediums could provide insightful data.

Let’s look at the first example. In this week’s discussion, I expressed my irritation with text notifications. However, after discussing my issue with the notifications my friend told me she loves the notifications. Below is a way to adapt an existing evaluation method for notifications.























This is another example about the opportunity to evaluate how effective a social network Fan page is at engaging the social network users.























I want you guys to talk back to me an let me know what are some other ways you can evaluate emerging media strategies. Collectively our thoughts can create the awesome opportunity to build the base of evaluation.

A few weeks ago I posted a tool that was attempting to calculate the ROI of social media. TweetROI is a newly launched project aiming to monetizing Twitter. The service is aimed at





TweetROI allows

  • Advertisers provide a product;
  • Twitter users choose if they want to Tweet it and even choose the words to do that.

The described benefits for advertisers:

  • Campaign tracking and analytics;
  • Full control: messenger quality, number of messengers, tweet scheduling, etc

Some details and innovations:

  • Twitter users/ publishers are ranked based on their UserRank consisting of:
    • TalkRank (built depending on how often the account is updated)
    • ConversionRank (based on the number of replies)
    • ViralRank (based on the number of retweets)
  • Pay-per-Tweet model: Tweets are worth “$0.25 – $75.00″
  • Twitter users may remain authentic (e.g. recommend the product in your own words)
  • Transparency: tweet only undisclosed campaigns
  • Affiliate program for attracting more marketers.












Check it out here No one more reason to have 100,000 followers who you don’t care to follow.



I also found this cool vis of the Twittervese…


When we think of social media and all of the interconnectivness (yeah I know so not a word, but I love it!) [interconnectedness] we feel that its all good. Well for one industry it’s all bad! A recent article posted today talks about the one type of person whose face shouldn’t be on Facebook.

Social media is ruing the spy industry.

“National security advisors are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit people who do not have an online trail, according to Rob Cotton, chief executive of NCC Group.

Anyone with a Facebook account automatically has images in the public domain and is associated with a variety of organisations and other people, making it difficult to keep a low profile, he said.

“Having a Facebook profile, you are opening up a Pandora’s box of online traceability that you can’t ever truly close, which extends to close associates too,” said Cotton.”

While this is a UK published article, I bet the US is feeing the same effects. Some may say why not deactivate the profiles and keep it moving. Well once on the Net always on the Net. Think about it. This isn’t the first time social networking has caused governments to squirm.

U.S. Army Intelligence is concerned that terrorists might use the micro-blogging platform Twitter to coordinate attacks, according to a draft report (pdf) compiled by the 304th Military Intelligence Battalion. As Noah Schactman first blogged at Wired, the military has long been concerned that Al Qaeda and its ilk could “take advantage of commercial hardware and software to help plan and carry out strikes.” Wouldn’t it be ironic–in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word–if just as these, um, twerrorists were tweeting, the network went down, perhaps during a Steve Jobs keynote?

The report offers three scenarios:

1.) A twerrorist tweets his homies with real-time information, say, troop movements.

2.) The twerrorist picks the perfect moment for a bomb blast, which his collaborator detonates with the use of a cell phone.

3.) A twerrorist follows military personnel on Twitter, “and begins to elicit information,” that could be “used for a targeting package,” such as “identity theft, hacking and/or physical.”

Some may see Web 2.0 as a golden opportunity to track those who creep deep in the night, but I assure you- just as we try to keep an eye on them they have two eyes on us.

This week’s discussion focused on identifying the most effective and least effective social mediums or “pass along” mediums. An overwhelming number of my classmates identified Facebook as the most effective medium and wikis as the least effective medium. My disagreement with their options were based on two separate issues- 1) know what is a tool  2) to effectively use a social medium as an effective marketing communication tool you have to know the purpose of a the tool.

I say this to further say that the original intent of wikis was not to act as an external marketing communication tool. There are not “pass along” mediums. The reason why so many of my classmates feel that wikis are the least effective marketing communication tool is because 1) they are trying to force them in a category that doesn’t fit 2) they are over generalizing the function of wiki with Wikipedia 3) they have not used a wiki effectively yet.

So what is the best way to say something does not work- try making its purpose not fit with its purpose. It’s like trying to boil an egg in a skillet. The skillet now becomes an in effective cooking tool, but only because you are trying to boil in it.

Let me rewind… Some of you may not have the slightest idea about what a wiki is and what’s its purpose. Please watch this before continuing.

So now that you have that background. Here is my discussion…

To understand how wikis can become an effective marketing tool, you have to understand what the initial purpose of the tool. Wikis are a way to collaborate on documents and ideas without the constraints of being physically together or through dozens of e-mails. As a user of wikis for project collaboration, I am led to believe that many people associate the use of wikis with Wikipedia.

Many of us are aware of the Wikipedia format- people can edit any information or post information in which they feel they are knowledgeable without any constraints. This is not the function of all wikis.

“Inside an organization, the audience is much more stable and easily identified; it usually consists of employees, business partners, and, in some cases, customers. Therefore, the need to have a wide-open, publicly accessible site to attract users isn’t necessary.” (Mader, 2009)

You can also limit users of a wiki, provide guidelines, and track the edited information. Also, IP addresses are tracked to ensure no harmful information is added and remove users who are posting harmful information. From a marketing standpoint this type of collaboration can become increasing useful as a communication tool. They key is to define who the communication is for and why is communication with the audience pertinent.

How to apply this in the real world?

Let’s assume that I am ATE, Inc. a company that develops products specifically for women and women hygiene. Below is a sample of the wiki with the chosen target audience to include internal team members, investors, and women between the ages of 18-45.

So you can follow along the blue text is the team’s suggestions, red is the general public (women), the green is investors, and scratched out information is things that have been edited with new purple text.

(This is very simplified for the demonstration)

 Wiki With Me

So marketers have communicated with their target audience in one central location. The product is truly an effort of all affected. Of course more would go into the process of developing a razor including patents etc., but this is how it could work.

Has the world caught up with harnessing the power of wikis, absolutely not- but don’t count them out just yet. As you move through the 4Ps understand that marketing communication has a purpose and a presence in all 4P areas- from research to development to promoting (I know they don’t start with Ps).

Also know what a platforms true purpose is and enhance that. Last poet I talked about the missing identifying of platforms. Wikis does not equal Wikipedia.

This week’s discussion focused on identifying the most effective and least effective social mediums or “pass along” mediums. An overwhelming number of my classmates identified Facebook as the most effective medium and wikis as the least effective medium. My disagreement with their options were based on two separate issues- 1) know what is a tool  2) to effectively use a social medium as an effective marketing communication tool you have to know the purpose of a the tool.

I identify those two things because from the discussions I gathered that people were identifying Facebook as the most effective social medium when Facebook is the brand name of the social medium- social networks. You may think hey this is just a small oversight, of course they meant social networks, right? Wrong.

Time and time again I hear that Facebook is the place to be if you are an organization looking to make a social presence. I could not disagree more. Social networks are a place to begin, but Facebook is always the best place.

Here is my discussion from this week….

So an overwhelming majority of you all choose Facebook as the most effective marketing tool. I can not disagree however, I would like to direct and focus the arguments to ensure its understood why Facebook is an efficient marketing tool and why it is not.

As many of you have pointed out Facebook has over 200 million world-wide users. The key words are world-wide. To understand if this is the most effective medium you have to know who you are targeting. Let’s assume most of the companies you all had in mind were US based.

facebooktrends3As for US users there are approximately 60 millions users (Inside Facebook, 2009) and while this is no number to shy act, the numbers do not reflect active users. It is also import to understand who in the US is using Facebook.

So what is you are prescription eye glass company that offers unique benefits for those of Medicare…. Is Facebook for you?

If you are an adolescent educational gaming company…Is Facebook for you?

I fear that many people rave about Facebook just because of the shear number of people who are on the site (again nothing to shy at).

The discussion would have been more rounded if social networking sites as a whole was the medium discussed then the benefits of Facebook as a social networking site. Social networking sites are a great medium to interact with consumers and an effective marketing communication tool, but not because the number of members the sites has.

Of course the sites should be “larger enough to matter”, but that’s matter to your organization. My program is looking at using the social networking site as a pilot to the effectiveness of social networking sites. In previous posts I discussed sites social networking sites that are tailored to industries, such as restaurants and healthcare, as well as ethnic races such as Blackplanet and Asian Ave.

It is important to remember that Facebook is brand name of a social networking site and not the medium itself.

I found an interesting blog post about Facebook and its true benefits. Listen to this:

Of its total traffic 29% comes from the US alone. Of the 29%- “12.5% simply come to Facebook and leave without clicking to another page. When you consider that 10% of visitors come from Search engines, there is a feeling that around a quarter of visitors is just onlookers and not active participants. Still a great crowd puller.”

“The age group from 18-24 is grossly overrepresented at Facebook as compared to the overall internet population. Age group 25-34 is overrepresented and the age group above 34 is underrepresented. The conclusion is obvious. If I am selling to the young generation, Facebook may be the place to look for them.”

“The success rate of attracting customers from Facebook will generally vary from product to product. The population in Facebook is certainly not homogeneous.  These are issues we may have to ponder and deliberate upon. As a internet marketing consultant, I would recommend Facebook as a suitable platform on case to case basis. Certainly it is not for everyone.” (RTMLWise, 2009)


So you see my argument has nothing against Facebook. In fact, I often use Facebook for promoting different events, but only because of the target demographics call for it.

I want to clear up some common confusion and I take this from my journalism days. We often use brand names as the generic terms which lead to common misconceptions. Yes, it great if you are in the marketing department of these companies, but its confusing for others to discern the true purpose. Let me try to explain what I mean:

Many say Pampers… “Honey can you get me some pampers from the store?”

They often mean diapers.

Many say Jell-O… “Kids would you like some Jell-O for dessert?”

They often mean gelatin.

Many say…. “Pass me a nice cold Coke

They often mean cola flavored drink. (Could be Pepsi, Ritz, etc.)

So when I hear organizations saying we need to be on Facebook, I assume they want a social networking presence.

I want to be on YouTube, I assume they would like an online social video presence. (Could be Hulu, Icyou, etc.)

You have to know what first know what platform is best then decide the brand for effective marketing communication.

For the most part we have all heard of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Linkedin, etc. These social networking sites are jammed packed with active users staying connected and updated constantly and now in real time.

When companies are considering investing in becoming apart of the social media world, they often want to know what is the return on investment. So one can imagine how hard it is for investors thinking about buying into the social media frenzy to put an actual number on the profitability of the company.

We often hear about many of the major social networking sites operating in the red and trying to make ends meet. Tech crunch reported Facebook money loses in late 2009 ( Facebook May Be Growing Too Fast. And Hitting The Capital Markets Again)



A new report shows the true value of various social networks. The report show that while Facebook is the world’s largest, MySpace is still the most valuable. It is interesting to see the value of many other sites that we rarely think about.

 This shows that there is value in other sites that are not “household names.” People are using the sites and there is a niche for certain markets. Take a look at the report and talk back!


Your Weekly Glee! Thank you!

Thank you again for visiting my blog. Visit this area weekly for "The Weekly Glee." Basically, something that will make you smile, think, debate, comment or just inspire. Feel free to comment under the page "The Weekly Glee." This Weekly Glee is easy- just vote! Comment on any post and vote. Everyone wins this week! Free FOOD! From where? Hint: Thank Goodness It's......!