For the most part, the idea behind sending holiday cards to clients is about showing appreciation and spreading a little goodwill, right? So does it really matter if your good intentions arrive on actual paper? The answer: maybe.
At the risk of looking cheap, lazy and/or impersonal, e-cards are best left to businesses who fit one or more of the following criteria:
Tech/Web Companies
Environmentally-Related Companies
Environmentally-Conscious Companies*
*Good rule of thumb here is whether your business walks the walk on evironmental responsibility the other 365 days a year in ways that are recognizable enough for your clients to be aware of them.
Done well, an e-card from a business like those described above can be an even better approach to spreading good cheer in a personal and fun way than traditional holiday cards. Speaking of…take a gander at what we drummed up for our ‘09 holiday card! (Tooting our own horn? No, not us!)
Ask me which of these two social networking giants I prefer and I’ll tell you Facebook. Now ask me which of these two I think will still be around in 5 years. I think you might be surprised to hear me say Twitter. Honestly, I’m kind of surprised by it too – but hear me out.
Obviously, both of these networks hold value (and/or create value) for their users. Both are very popular and both are adding members like mad. Both are also likely to take a hit in membership over the next several years as users grow bored with them and move on to the next big thing (which will probably be something from Google – like everything else). That said, if you had to hedge a bet on the success of one or the other, you might be inclined to go with Facebook since 250 million users is a lot more than somewhere around 5 million (though no “official” membership data has been released by Twitter). But it’s another shared characteristic of both networks that gives me pause: each has yet to turn a profit.
Popularity aside, we all know that nothing is free – and if these networks can’t figure out how to turn their fame into fortune, they’re sunk. Both have legions of super-smart people working tirelessly to try and figure out how to be profitable.
So why do I think Twitter has a better shot? Two reasons:
I found the most important information in the Twitter article to be this:
Twitter, which does not yet make money, is now concentrating on teaching businesses how they can join and use it, Mr. Banerji said, and the company plans to publish case studies. He is also developing products that Twitter can sell to businesses of all sizes this year, including features to verify businesses’ accounts and analyze traffic to their Twitter profiles.
For the Facebook article, it’s this:
The paradox of the social network is that trust—the very lifeblood of the site’s growth—may be the same thing hindering its financial success. Recently, the company faced a series of heavily-publicized battles when users were turned off by Beacon, an initiative by the site that targeted advertisements at individual users without their consent. After many Facebookers protested, discussions arose over what information Facebook owns about each of their users, and a new privacy code was established on the site.
Facebook members have grown too comfortable with the idea of the site being used for any purpose beyond the one it currently serves in their lives. They don’t want to get messages from advertisers in their inbox (even if they really might want what’s being peddled), they want messages from friends. Period.
Twitter on the other hand is new enough not to have fully cemented this kind of relationship with their users, and already seems to have an audience that is more open and accepting of commercial overtures. What’s more, some of the possibilities for revenue opportunities they’ve floated seem like winners. If I was a business owner or celebrity, I’d be more than happy to pay for the ability to weed out imposter accounts or access analytics of my profile page (at least one of which should be possible and free to begin with, but that’s a topic for another post).
We recently buttoned up a pretty cool project for Black Magic Auto Care Products to highlight their sponsorship of Bullrun 2009. In case you’re wondering, Bullrun is an annual, seven-day, cross-country road trip featuring a rowdy, celeb-studded cast of characters and some of the hottest, most exclusive automobiles on the planet.
As part of their sponsorship efforts, Black Magic entered a customized, Ford F-150 SVT Raptor driven by the guys at Garage 419 into the rally to get in on the action and get extra mileage (pun intended) out of their participation.
To put rally fans in the passenger seat with the Black Magic team, we built a custom microsite with flash features for daily updates, race tracking and even a custom YouTube Channel. Through daily blog posts, an up-to-the-minute Twitter feed, maps, photos and videos, Black Magic fans were able to live the experience of an exclusive and world-renowned automotive event and interact directly with the brand in an engaging and authentic way. Check out our portfolio for more information or visit the site to see things for yourself!
Today’s New York Times has an interesting feature about FedEx’s first foray into web-video advertising. Starting today you’ll find a series of clips extolling the virtues of FedEx in the form of three(ish) minute skits at youtube.com/getinfotained. FedEx has brought in veteran comedy writer, Bob Odenkirk, to direct each skit – which play as parodies of the classic infomercial formula.
The move to the web follows FedEx’s surprise decision to forgo ad space in the last Super Bowl after 20 years as a notable advertiser. At the time, the company felt like the expense ($3 million for a 30-second spot this year) was unjustifiable in light of the economic downturn. As FedEx’s director of advertising makes clear to the NY Times, the reach and relative affordability of the web has become impossible to ignore:
Steve Pacheco, director of advertising at FedEx, said the new infomercial campaign reflected FedEx’s acknowledgment of the growing sentiment that “lunchtime is the new prime time,” meaning that the multitudes who watch videos online while chomping sandwiches in cubicles rival those wielding remote controls at night.
“We’re still very involved in television, especially with all our sports and sponsorship support,” Mr. Pacheco said. “But digital advertising and communication is taking a bigger role in the overall plan, because we try to scale our media plan to be where our customers are.”
There are several things that I’m seriously interested in. Two of the biggies are writing (obviously) and politics. Even if you’re not all that into either one of those things, this interview with political PR guru, Frank Luntz, is worth checking out for any business owner or marketing/brand manager who wants to know what really makes people tick (Hint: it’s all about the language). While technically he’s actually discussing “phrasing” vs. “writing,” the practical applications are the same.
I came across this the other day on a blog somewhere and thought it was a great example of clever interactive marketing: It seems Charmin has become the “sponsor” of a little site called sitorsquat.com. Essentially, this site (which has existed in some form since ‘07) uses Google maps to locate the closest public restroom to an address entered by a user.
Now, thanks to Charmin, users can download free mobile applications for iPhones and BlackBerrys that use GPS to show you the way to the nearest public pit stop. Not only will you get location, Sit or Squat also lets users rate each restroom based on ick-factor (an average rating above 2.5 is “sit,” below “squat”) so you can avoid less than stellar accommodations (if you have the luxury of being picky).
Being a toilet paper company, this is obviously a great fit for Charmin, and it’s getting them a lot of buzz on blogs and other traditional media outlets-which is the point, of course. What’s so interesting about it though, is that Sit or Squat was a pre-existing site – the lesson being that you don’t necessarily need to be a corporate giant for a good, common-sense interactive site or application to pay off. Certainly, Charmin’s saving some cash by avoiding the cost of custom application development and Sit or Squat now has a corporate sponsor to finance their brainchild and tell the world about it. It’s a win-win.
I like to peruse the blogs over at U.S. News & World Report from time to time, and I came across something today that I think is really interesting and directly related to what we’re often trying to communicate to our clients. In a post today, one of USN’s career bloggers, GL Hoffman, says that HR departments generally give your resume 20 seconds to grab their attention. He follows up with some advice on how to be sure yours stands out, but what is really interesting is the little bit of info he tacked on to the bottom:
I did an experiment over at WhatWouldDadSay.com, where I asked readers to create a SIX-WORD résumé for themselves. Given the widespread fascination with Twitter and its 140-character limitation, I thought it would showcase good writing discipline. Not that you have to make your own six-word résumé, but notice how effective some of the (personal or otherwise) entries were:
“As I live, so does Apple.”—Steve Jobs
“Solving complex problems efficiently and elegantly.”—A personal entry
Another personal entry: “I stand alone, next to me.”
“Fire it up. Ready to go.”—Barack Obama
From a real estate staging person: “Staging it better. Selling it faster.”
Here is one of my favorites that combines two movie characters: “Now reverse in aging am I.”—Yoda Button
This may seem to be a worthless exercise—and it is certainly silly—but it’s not worthless if it only makes you realize that a lot can be said in a few well-chosen words.
That last paragraph there really hits it on the head. In my opinion, in the majority of instances- and almost always when you’re talking about web or ad copy- quality trumps quantity.
That said, anybody want to take a crack at their own six word resume?
This is a web ad that was launched as part of a print and online advertising campaign for Motrin on Sept. 30th, and it’s a great example of two things:
1) Copywriting matters.
2) Word of mouth combined with web 2.0 is powerful thing.
So, what happened here is Motrin designed a campaign that is obviously targeted to a very valuable demographic: women with children. Their primary message can be found in the Clintonesque tagline they’ve used at the end of this ad: “Motrin. We feel your pain.” Nice, right? Simple enough. Makes sense. And then it all goes downhill.
Someone at Motrin decided that the best way to make this connection would be to focus on the aches and pains associated with wearable baby carriers – which have become popular with parents over the past several years because of the unique bonding experience they provide. This too, is all well and good, until you read/hear the first line of the ad:
“Wearing your baby seems to be in fashion.”
Hmmm. Right off the bat, you’ve got problems. First, this statement could (and coincidentally, did) imply that wearing your baby in a carrier has more to do with appearing fashionable or hip than bonding with your child (think Paris Hilton clutching a miniature dog on a red carpet). Generally, anything that may compare someone’s child to a celebutant’s chihuahua is unwise. But, there’s still an opportunity to clarify with the follow-up statement, which includes the phrase:
“Supposedly it’s a real bonding experience.”
So close! Replace “Supposedly” with “There’s no denying that” and you’re home free! Until this next doozy:
“I’ll put up with the pain because it’s a good kind of pain. It’s for my kid.” (getting warmer…) “Plus, it totally makes me look like an official mom.” (Cold)
Clearly, nobody ran this copy past anyone from the target audience-or a good editor (which, for the record, is almost always a wise move). As you might expect, mothers of America were none too pleased, and they voiced their dismay in a big way. The ad was pulled after two days of a massive mommy 2.0 backlash on Twitter and blogs across the internet.
Motrin’s new PR problem is a perfect example of how little appealing graphics and a good idea (or intentions) mean if the copy isn’t right.
