Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much!
It is not ok to just use social channels to just broadcast.
It is not ok to simply advertise and call it Social Media.
It is not ok to block employees from accessing social media sites while at work.
It is not ok to discourage employees from building their own personal brands.
It is not ok to allow PR agencies to be your social voice without regular input from company employees.
It is not ok to let interns set your social media strategy.
I could literally just write that title then leave the rest of this article blank and let everyone chime in and fend for themselves as to where they fall in this debate. This epic debate, which it has become as the cost associated with advertising during the Super Bowl has escalated to super heights, if you will.
Those in the marketing and advertising space surely have opinions, and more than likely strong ones at that as to the merits and benefits of spending gobs of money for 30 seconds of air time.
A few days ago in Forbes, Rob Siltanen, founder and chief creative officer of Siltanen & Partners, a Los Angeles-based advertising agency, in his article entitled Yes, A Super Bowl Ad Really Is Worth $4 Million, stated categorically that he believes “the Super Bowl to be one of the smartest investments a company can possibly make. In fact, the Super Bowl makes more sense today than ever before.”
Getting the right message to the right people at the right time is an age-old marketing mantra. And how you hit that sweet spot has been foremost in the minds of every marketer since people started selling things to each other. That hasn’t changed over the years, but our ability to connect with each other and gather information about each other has. So you would think that with today’s Real-Time Marketing (RTM) and all this technology at our fingertips we could hit the bull’s eye every time, right? Well… we’re getting there, but it’s still a rocky road. Sometimes when we try to use advances in technology to get in front of more prospects, we get some push-back, especially online and in social channels. However, that depends on how the information gets used.
Gallaghers was acquired in January 2013 by Central Park Boathouse operator Dean Poll, a good personal friend who has shown me time and time again that Return on Relationship is part of his DNA. Dean is a native Long Islander who grew up in the restaurant industry. Traveling to Brooklyn on weekends with his father to work at the family owned Pappas Restaurant, Dean learned the business from the ground up… literally. From sweeping floors to cleaning shrimp; no job was too menial for this 8 year old.
Dean closed the restaurant on July 9th for renovation and rejuvenation. I visited a couple of weeks ago and got a sneak peak. The photos here do not do it justice and I am anxiously awaiting the reopening which is expected to be February 4th. Please come and check it out as soon as it reopens. I assure you the experience and ambiance will be second to none.
1 – My personality
2 – My passion
and…
3 – My obsessiveness with being connected 
*Thanks for asking this question and making me think about it Bryan Kramer.
On December 16th of last year I posted a collection of predictions for the coming year from and for the marketing and advertising world. The fearless forecasters I gathered together shared their insights into what they think lies ahead in the coming year and they did so with a twist. They were asked to not only provide a prognostication but to do so with a pop culture reference attached to it.
It turned out to be a lot of fun and I highly recommend you read it. Not because I wrote it. On the contrary, I recommend you read it for it provides a collection of wisdom from the best and brightest minds today, all in one place.
Now the reason I preface my article with all this is due to the fact that my prediction then ties in precisely what I want to talk about today. My foretelling spoke of the need to go back to the beginning, as Inigo Montoya (my pop culture reference) stated so eloquently in the film The Princess Bride.
Originally posted at Ignite Social Media
“Create smiles… they are the currency of conversations.” #RonR – Ted Rubin
When I tweet a brand, like a growing number of consumers, I expect them to respond, especially if I have a question or a problem. For many, Twitter has become the customer service contact of choice. Even when I don’t have an inquiry, it’s nice to know the brand is there in a humanistic sort of way. Like I know@AmericanAir is there for me, even when i’m not asking for anything:
I think creativity in social media is at the heart of the problem of realizing and executing the true value of social. Save the creativity for advertising “campaigns,” and get down to the basics of relationship building when it comes to discussions about social and connecting with consumers.
The payoff is a long-term and personal relationship that creates brand advocates and an emotional connection that drives influence. To achieve such an enriching relationship, communication must be relevant and have a distinct and authentic personality. So steer your efforts, and resources, to “creatively” connecting, value added content, and empowering your employees to be a part of solution.
Brands/Companies that use social beyond the campaign will reap the rewards of customer satisfaction, deeper employee loyalty, more effective knowledge sharing, improved brand reputation, lowered costs, and most importantly, increased revenues.
For years a number of years now the prevalent wisdom in marketing circles has been that men brought home the bacon, and women ran the house and ruled the household checkbook. Marketing to women has been the focus and the norm, and with the rise of the Mom Blogger community, this central core of marketing has been the focus of influencer marketing as well. Women shop for groceries, feed and cloth the family, and manage the household finances. They even largely influence the big decisions on housing, car purchases and other big-ticket expenditures. So we have come to market our products with women in mind.
But in the past couple of years we’ve been hearing about a new type of consumer—the “mansumer.” Especially with the economic pressures of current times, we can’t deny that more and more households are dual-income. Combine that with the fact that younger people are marrying later, and we’re seeing a shift in the traditional male role. More men are making purchases than ever before. They’re sharing household chores much more than in the past, and also taking on more duties in childcare. Dad Bloggers are yearning for attention and declaring themselves highly influential and an important target for marketers.
Marketing agencies (mostly dominated by men, incidentally) are looking at these recent trends and suggesting that more attention be given to marketing to the mansumer—and retailers have taken it seriously. From male-oriented “man isles” in grocery stores to car manufacturers producing more macho themed vehicles, even candles with manlier-named scents (Riding Mower and 2X4), marketers are rushing to cater to an audience they’ve been led to believe are supplanting their feminine counterparts.
But is the mansumer really pushing the female consumer off her pedestal? Should marketers really be turning everything they’ve learned in the past decade about consumerism and the female role in it upside-down? I don’t think so.
Hey look—for all intents and purposes, I’m a mansumer. As a single father, I’ve been making my own shopping choices now for years, as I’m sure are many of my brethren. However, I’m not particularly drawn to the “man-isle” when shopping for groceries, nor do I think that men are actually making more household decisions… even most of mine are influenced or directed by women. Truth be told, I think it is more about a cry for attention than a true shift in behavior and decision-making.
Whether or not men are sharing more responsibility in married households (and I believe they are), women still make the majority of decisions. Even if the husband goes out to do the shopping, and the woman is a high-level execustive, what is more important is understanding who makes the list and is primarily responsible for what is purchased. I don’t see that the female has “given up” her role as primary ruler of the household; not by a long shot.
In my opinion (and you may hear differently from many men, at least when you talk to them without their wives in the room) it is still to a very large extent the women controlling what’s in the shopping cart. Men may claim they have control, or even share it, but I strongly believe that is not the case. They are doing the chores, but not controlling the majority of buying decisions.
Sit a man next to his wife and ask him the same question and I am absolutely sure you will hear a different answer. Guys have an inherent desire to be recognized for their contributions and like to talk it up when they are with groups of men. It’s the way they’re built. But that doesn’t mean the basic purchasing dynamic has really changed. It only means that the male personality and ego has become interjected.
In the larger scheme of things, I think mansumerism is a myth. When alone, men cannot help but take more credit for decisions than they deserve—so let’s not get too crazy. Marketing and myths don’t mix very well.
