I wanted to blog about Netflix a couple months ago when they announced their new price structure (and consequent increase), but by the time I was bothered enough by indignant consumers to share my thoughts, it became mostly irrelevant. Netflix users were outraged by the price increase, which was essentially only for their DVD mail service, a service that requires much more overhead and resources than their instant watch service. I kept telling the people around me that Netflix had a plan. Instant watch is the future, DVDs are dying. And it's true. Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, has had the future of Netflix in the back of his mind since the company started, and now he's just pushing it forward.
As most people know at this point, Netflix has recently stumbled into another PR problem. In a tardy apology letter to users, Hastings announced that Netflix is now becoming two separate entitites - Netflix will become your go-to place for online streaming, while Qwikster will remain focused on DVD mailing. In my professional opinion, splitting into two companies was a horrible, awful, stupid idea. People know the name Netflix, don't change it. Especially to Qwikster, which evokes memories of awfully-named Internet start-ups of the early 2000's. Netflix has a strong brand, but Qwikster adds a new element of confusion to the mix, which will just trip consumers up if and when they want to use the DVD mailing service.
Let's recap: Netflix raises prices substantially, people are angry and end their subscriptions. Netflix sends a letter to all remaining customers announcing Qwikster and loses more subscriptions. Is Netflix done for?
That's a big no. Netflix tried to fix something that wasn't broken, but they're still on the right path. Their PR disaster does not change the fact that online streaming is the future. I'm a 21-year-old college student - all I do is stream. I watch Netflix on my computer frequently. I own an Apple TV; almost 100% of the content I watch on my television is from Netflix. If Netflix doesn't have a movie I want, I stream from a different source and hook my computer up to my television. My generation streams content a lot. Netflix is ready for us... but a lot of the older generations aren't on the bandwagon just yet, nor do they want to be. Technology requires exploration and discovery. In a few years time, many other demographics will realize the virtues of streaming, especially with the advent of Internet televisions. However, this realization and discovery shouldn't be rushed, and that's where Netflix has stumbled. They are forcing their customers to change their habits, and that won't work. They need to provide their customers will everything they need to slowly discover the benefits of streaming.
Reed Hastings is smart. He's on top of his game. But he's ahead of the game, and too impatient to wait. Sure, people are ditching Netflix on "principle" and are furious at the company - but Netflix isn't finished. Netflix is focused on obtaining new licensing and expanding their streaming features - in fact, as of yesterday morning, they have signed a deal with Discovery, bringing popular Discovery Channel TV shows to their streaming collection. This little brand disaster will pass and people will adapt to, and learn to love, the new Netflix.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The Power of Twitter: Jell-O Pudding Face
I stumbled across a very unique use of social media and advertising this morning (on Twitter, incidentally). Jell-O, as some of you know, has launched a relatively creepy advertising campaign centered on "Pudding Face". (Evidently, Pudding Face is an abnormally large, mostly freaky looking smile someone gets after enjoying a scrumptious Jell-O Pudding). However, despite the creep factor, Jell-O has managed to pull off their integrated campaign on the web and on a giant billboard in NYC. And this time, they've succeeded in making it more humorous than scary.
On their website, they display a feed of Tweets featuring a happy face ":)" or frowny face ":(". They then compare the happiness of the country to the "frowniness". Whenever less the 51% of the country is happy, they give away free pudding - in the hope of getting people back to their original Pudding Face elation. The same concept is now applied to their new billboard in NYC - a percentage of smiley faces is compared to frowny faces (based on the Tweets they display online), while a giant face in the middle switches between smiling and frowning, depending on the mood of the country. It's an interesting idea - new, unique, and funny. Makes people stop in their tracks or double take just to understand what they're seeing, which makes the advertising powerful. Check out the website here: Jell-O Pudding Face and read about the billboard here: Adweek: Jell-O Pudding's NYC Billboard is Powered by Twitter.
Despite the original creep factor, I have got to hand it to ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky (not surprisingly, since they're one of the best in the business). It's fresh. It's alluring. It's amusing. And, it effectively passes on the message that Jell-O Pudding makes you happy. It also shows that the people at Jell-O believe their message enough to give their product away for free - all in the efforts to prove to you that Jell-O Pudding has the power to give you Pudding Face. Now let's all go out for some pudding...
On their website, they display a feed of Tweets featuring a happy face ":)" or frowny face ":(". They then compare the happiness of the country to the "frowniness". Whenever less the 51% of the country is happy, they give away free pudding - in the hope of getting people back to their original Pudding Face elation. The same concept is now applied to their new billboard in NYC - a percentage of smiley faces is compared to frowny faces (based on the Tweets they display online), while a giant face in the middle switches between smiling and frowning, depending on the mood of the country. It's an interesting idea - new, unique, and funny. Makes people stop in their tracks or double take just to understand what they're seeing, which makes the advertising powerful. Check out the website here: Jell-O Pudding Face and read about the billboard here: Adweek: Jell-O Pudding's NYC Billboard is Powered by Twitter.
Despite the original creep factor, I have got to hand it to ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky (not surprisingly, since they're one of the best in the business). It's fresh. It's alluring. It's amusing. And, it effectively passes on the message that Jell-O Pudding makes you happy. It also shows that the people at Jell-O believe their message enough to give their product away for free - all in the efforts to prove to you that Jell-O Pudding has the power to give you Pudding Face. Now let's all go out for some pudding...
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Discussion: Social Media Marketing
We all know social media is a huge deal these days - there are 750 million people worldwide on Facebook and 200 million users on Twitter, so there can be no denying that there is a massive market to be reached through these social giants' network.
But how should companies market on Facebook? According to a recent Harvard Business Review study, only 12% of companies surveyed claim they are "effective users" of social media, while only 7% think they have been successful in integrating social media across their marketing campaigns. Why is this? Why is marketing through social media so elusive?
Let's start with the biggest problem. Social media ≠ Facebook. Sure, Facebook is a huge player in the realm of social media and it should not be neglected - but is Facebook the right path for your company's social media needs? Before starting a social media campaign, consider what platform might be best for your needs. Facebook has an incredible market to tap into, but Twitter makes it easier for users to interact with the company in an informal setting. Other networks, such as Foursquare, help users band together and benefit from using and sharing a brand. So what image are you creating? Is it best for your company to interact with fans, users, and customers from behind the veil of your brand, or do you want your users to feel like they are interacting with a person or representative when they reach out? Is your brand strong enough to rely solely on your users to pass on the word? There is no all-encompassing right or wrong answer - it all depends on what's best for your brand. Don't jump into social media without doing the proper research, but don't be apprehensive about it. Find out what's best for you and implement it.
How can social media help you? In the world of marketing, we throw around the term "impression" a lot. It might be a media impression made by a print ad, billboard, or television spot or it could be a "social media brand impression", a new breed created by the prominence of social networks. An impression is an instance in which your advertisement is seen or displayed. Marketers and companies alike love unpaid impressions. These are self explanatory - impressions gained without payment by the company. Since social media is largely populated by free services, social media brand impressions are often unpaid. How do you gain these impressions? Easy - be active with your network. On Facebook, you have a first network (your "fans") and a second network (friends of your "fans"). By publishing posts on your Facebook page, you can gain impressions for your current fans by showing up within their Facebook News Feed. By gaining new fans, you tap into that second network - the action of "liking" a page will show up in the News Feed of the friends of your new fan.
Now, Twitter is bit different. While you can gain "followers" quite easily, there is no way to tap into that second network unless you engage your first network enough to merit retweeting. However, it's much easier to tap into the entire market of Twitter users as all tweets, whether made by a company, celebrity, or you customers, are public. You can search your company name and receive a feed of all tweets mentioning you. Learning to navigate Twitter can provide a new challenge but reap new benefits.
Perhaps my own personal bias is showing through here. Personally, I find Twitter to be far more effective than Facebook at marketing yourself and your company. There are many out there who disagree with that statement, so it all comes down to personal taste, your research, and your needs. As an avid user of my personal Facebook account, I can tell you that the companies that I do "like" don't score many impressions with me. That may be because of Facebook's annoyingly inaccurate Edge Rank algorithm (this how they rank content based on how likely the user (in this case, me) might be interested in it). I have realized many times that Facebook's algorithm is causing me to not be able to keep up with all of my friends, including the companies I follow. Twitter uses no such algorithm and I am able to receive all of the information that I actually signed up to get. However, Facebook marketing has its merits (and a user base of 750 million strong), so it is of utmost importance to do the research and find out what's best for you.
Thanks to Jeff Bullas: Is This the Holy Grail of Facebook Marketing? for some of the information you'll see in this post, as well as being the impetus behind my writing it.
Please comment with any of your thoughts or questions!
But how should companies market on Facebook? According to a recent Harvard Business Review study, only 12% of companies surveyed claim they are "effective users" of social media, while only 7% think they have been successful in integrating social media across their marketing campaigns. Why is this? Why is marketing through social media so elusive?
Let's start with the biggest problem. Social media ≠ Facebook. Sure, Facebook is a huge player in the realm of social media and it should not be neglected - but is Facebook the right path for your company's social media needs? Before starting a social media campaign, consider what platform might be best for your needs. Facebook has an incredible market to tap into, but Twitter makes it easier for users to interact with the company in an informal setting. Other networks, such as Foursquare, help users band together and benefit from using and sharing a brand. So what image are you creating? Is it best for your company to interact with fans, users, and customers from behind the veil of your brand, or do you want your users to feel like they are interacting with a person or representative when they reach out? Is your brand strong enough to rely solely on your users to pass on the word? There is no all-encompassing right or wrong answer - it all depends on what's best for your brand. Don't jump into social media without doing the proper research, but don't be apprehensive about it. Find out what's best for you and implement it.
How can social media help you? In the world of marketing, we throw around the term "impression" a lot. It might be a media impression made by a print ad, billboard, or television spot or it could be a "social media brand impression", a new breed created by the prominence of social networks. An impression is an instance in which your advertisement is seen or displayed. Marketers and companies alike love unpaid impressions. These are self explanatory - impressions gained without payment by the company. Since social media is largely populated by free services, social media brand impressions are often unpaid. How do you gain these impressions? Easy - be active with your network. On Facebook, you have a first network (your "fans") and a second network (friends of your "fans"). By publishing posts on your Facebook page, you can gain impressions for your current fans by showing up within their Facebook News Feed. By gaining new fans, you tap into that second network - the action of "liking" a page will show up in the News Feed of the friends of your new fan.
Now, Twitter is bit different. While you can gain "followers" quite easily, there is no way to tap into that second network unless you engage your first network enough to merit retweeting. However, it's much easier to tap into the entire market of Twitter users as all tweets, whether made by a company, celebrity, or you customers, are public. You can search your company name and receive a feed of all tweets mentioning you. Learning to navigate Twitter can provide a new challenge but reap new benefits.
Perhaps my own personal bias is showing through here. Personally, I find Twitter to be far more effective than Facebook at marketing yourself and your company. There are many out there who disagree with that statement, so it all comes down to personal taste, your research, and your needs. As an avid user of my personal Facebook account, I can tell you that the companies that I do "like" don't score many impressions with me. That may be because of Facebook's annoyingly inaccurate Edge Rank algorithm (this how they rank content based on how likely the user (in this case, me) might be interested in it). I have realized many times that Facebook's algorithm is causing me to not be able to keep up with all of my friends, including the companies I follow. Twitter uses no such algorithm and I am able to receive all of the information that I actually signed up to get. However, Facebook marketing has its merits (and a user base of 750 million strong), so it is of utmost importance to do the research and find out what's best for you.
Thanks to Jeff Bullas: Is This the Holy Grail of Facebook Marketing? for some of the information you'll see in this post, as well as being the impetus behind my writing it.
Please comment with any of your thoughts or questions!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Predictable Introduction Post
Welcome to my new blog, Advert This! Here I'll be commenting on the goings-on in the world of business, advertising, and social media and sharing my views with all of you. Feel free to follow along and share your thoughts in the comments section. Hope you all enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)