Greenwashing

Green marketing is all the rage. People like to feel good about what they're buying, and are often willing to pay a little extra if they believe their purchase will help the earth. Marketers caught on to this trend pretty quickly, and false advertising has always been an unfortunate part of consumer culture. The result is that companies lie in their advertisements to make you believe your favorite brand has gone green.

(There is nothing green about 7Up! What are they playing at?!)

The term "greenwashing" technically relates to the idea that a marketing campaign is spending more money and effort to make you believe they are environmentally friendly rather than actually putting the thought into creating more sustainable practices. Norway has been the first to really crack down on greenwashing practices, in 1973 they appointed a marketing expert to ensure that green marketing laws are adhered to, and that no one runs falsified campaigns. The current official said of eco-friendly car ads: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others." Compare this to car advertising in the United States that have us practically believing that driving a Smartcar will save five polar bears per year. 

What bothers me about greenwashing is that it takes focus off of the companies that really have initiated  environmentally-friendly policies into their work, when it isn't cheap or easy to do. Greenwashing analysts remind us to "stay vigilant" and always be suspicious of vague claims. Notoriously pollution-heavy industries have been trying to put a green spin on their marketing and public relations lately; the term "clean coal" comes to mind. I want to see numbers, I want to see distinct sources of proof that your product is really eco-friendly. The problem is that this is not the only factor I care about when making a purchase, and a too-large rise in price will stop me from buying a product, green or otherwise (and green products almost always cost a bit more). It's a tricky field that is barely 40 years old, and only really becoming popular with the younger generations. Environmentally-friendly practices are undoubtedly a good thing for our world, by lying about it is undoubtedly not. 

Buying on the Go

Here's a cool stat for you: last year, consumers spent over $21 billion on purchases they made on their mobile phones. As a person who has never even considered venturing into this grand new frontier of global purchasing, this is staggering to me. According to research from IBM, 14.6% of all online shopping sessions begin from a mobile device.

'Tis the season for mass consumerism, and more people than ever are doing their shopping not only online, but on their mobile phones. Apps that facilitate these activities are coming out by the dozen, but as always, security is an issue. Most well-known retailers, like Amazon, have their own secure mobile checkout system for the shopper on the go. But I have to wonder. What if the wifi goes out, mid-purchase? The psychology of this phenomenon intrigues me. I suppose it's just another step closer to instant-gratification, and helps people who are shopping in the real world compare prices and save (as well as remember exactly what they want to buy... so many of my material wishes fall out of my head between the mall and my computer at home).

Online retailers are racing to enable mobile purchasing, and to streamline the process for the mobile user. What will become of "traditional" online purchasing as more and more of the population become comfortable (and able) to shop online, on the go? Online shopping comprises about 10% of the United States' total purchases, but this figure grows more prominent every year. Traditional retail is still the kingpin of American consumerism, but looking at today's tech-enabled culture, you'd never know it.

Personally, I would be hesitant to make a purchase from my phone. I just can't be sure I've selected exactly what I want, and cannot see that all the information is correct as clearly as I can on a larger screen. Reading that last sentence back, it seems like quite a flimsy complaint. I'm sure I will be able to overcome this insecurity in time, and I too will join the millions of Americans can see something they want in a store window, and are able to immediately buy it cheaper from somewhere online. Amazing.

Television for a Global Market

It's no wonder Europeans have a poor opinion of Americans, given the amount of television we export there. Gems like Baywatch, Jersey Shore, and American Idol are among the most popular to go global. Dramas such as House, Desperate Housewives, and 24 are also extremely popular overseas. It's intriguing to wonder whether the production studios that make these shows ever consider the possibility of a record-breaking marathon in Japan in which seven seasons of 24 were aired consecutively over the course of one week. The final season was pulled from the schedule because the storyline features nuclear radiation, which could be viewed as insensitive or offensive to a Japanese audience.

It used to be that Europeans watched more American television than anything made on their own continent. Numerous laws and directives were passed in the early 1990s to ensure European culture was not negatively impacted by the permeation of American values through their TVs. But recently, by popular demand, American TV shows are back on the airwaves overseas in record numbers.

Nowadays, global television goes both ways. I personally have seen several foreign television programs that I never would have had access to without the internet. Global media exchange raises the bar for quality content and production value; networks all over the world are raring to compete in the global market that has been US dominant since the advent of television. PBS and BBC America currently broadcast British television shows on American cable. Will we see this trend continue? The audience loves it: Sherlock, Downton Abbey, Doctor Who and more are growing more and more popular every year with American audiences. Maybe it's about time we gave Europeans some of the market share. Exporting culture should be a two-way street.

The Power of a Product Blog

Considering my last blog post was... three weeks ago, you may have noticed that I am not an avid blogger. But do you know what blogs I do like reading, however infrequently? Independent product blogs. Blogs from ordinary consumers that take the time to share their amateur expertise through reviews of common products. And once you find a blogger whose opinion you agree with and trust, my decision-making process when searching for a particular product is shortened significantly.

The products blogs I found just by googling for reviews of certain kinds of products are very niche. They put a lot of time into bringing you solid information about the kinds of products or services they review. But there is always the lingering worry that the small review center is actually biased, whether through payment (bribery) by a company to give a good review, or perhaps the blog is actually run by a marketing employee that works for the company! Both are huge violations of business practices and are illegal. But no doubt, on the more popular blogs, the advertising dollars have to come from somewhere.

A friend of mine followed "http://www.beautyreviews.co.uk/" religiously when we lived in London for a semester last year. The blog reviews beauty products found only in the United Kingdom, and we, being Americans, were at a loss as to what to buy when we arrived. Some brands are international, but most were completely foreign to us.  Revisiting this blog, I read the "about" section more carefully:

"All our reviews are independent, we have no affiliation with any of the brands listed and we're always delighted when you submit your comments too! ...  If you are a UK distributor or shop and would like to have your products reviewed, or are interested in sponsoring or advertising on any of our pages, please contact us at info@beautyreviews.co.uk." 

This seems innocent enough. But sponsorship and advertising imply that funds are being transferred to the owners of the blog, at no place is it stated that the blog operates not for profit. I do believe that many small product review blogs operate to be the selfless information sources that the internet has come to thrive on, but like anything, it's sometimes difficult to sift out the biased information from the unbiased.

The Future Marketing Benefits of Near-Field Communication

I went to a new media discussion panel last week, and among bringing up some very interesting topics relevant to my studies, they tossed around some terms I wasn't completely familiar with. I jotted them down and just now went back to learn more about Near Field Communication and QR Code.

I think Near Field Communication has the greatest possibility for web 3.0 marketing of anything I've seen recently. Now, I'm no expert in how this all works, but stay with me. From what I've read Near Field Communication is a capability of smartphones that allows them to communicate with each other when they are brought into close proximity of one another. Right now, this distance is at no more than a few centimeters, and writing this now I recall seeing a couple commercials for smartphones with this ability.

I see this as the first step in a huge new development for our mobile devices. Apps like "Google Wallet" are already making it possible to place your phone near a credit-card scanner and pay for things without the use of cash or card. While this sounds crazy awesome, I worry about the security risks this poses to one's funds when, via Near Field Communication, someone could potentially access your Google Wallet account just by being close to you and mildly tech-savvy.

But anyway, on to marketing. What I think would be interesting is that as the distance these fields are capable of reaching increase, couldn't nearby stores and shopping areas send a friendly promo to your phone, or the email account you check on your phone, when you become close enough to the physical place of exchange? You see the ad, something catches your eye, and behold, a handy map that shows it is just a short distance to the shop in question, and you have a few minutes to spare. I find that shopping online offers me a great deal of chances to doubt my purchase or abandon my cart. When I'm holding something in my hands that I want, I'm much more likely to cave and buy it. Sure, this whole new marketing scheme has the potential to be extremely annoying and invasive, but I predict that someday soon, someone or some company will figure it out. Web 3.0 is all about mobile devices and being able to do all that we can from a computer from our phones. Why not use them to bring online shopping back to the real world?

MySpace: The Next Big Thing?

We all remember MySpace, that ultra-customizable web application that was a great place to host your garage band. The general opinion of MySpace today isn't exactly favorable. I know that for my generation, it usually elicits laughter and complete dismissal when someone brings it up, MySpace was SO eight years ago. People my age were young teenagers around that time, so we naturally associate our unhappy MySpace pages with boy bands, middle school drama, and puberty.

What we will admit, however, is that MySpace definitely had an edge over Facebook for a couple years there. It was officially launched in early 2004, when Facebook was still a university-based network. I know that I didn't get a Facebook account until 2007, but MySpace was already on the decline by then. Overuse of banner ads slowed down navigation of the site, and everything just became too cluttered, especially when the novelty of customizing your page wore off. Facebook's streamlined approach was just more attractive to the online population.

What matters now is that MySpace is attempting to make an unprecedented comeback in social media. MySpace will continue to be entertainment-oriented, they say. They know that a large portion of its loyal visitors stuck with it as a way to discover and listen to free music. Taking a note from Facebook's success, the site has been completely redesigned. It's simpler, more attractive, and extremely conducive to mobile devices. Looking at examples of the new layout, social media savvy people will notice it appears to be the ultimate combination of  Pinterest, Tumblr, and Facebook. Could this be a winning combination? Instead of being an internet slave like me, who manages accounts on each of the sites mentioned above, would MySpace be the ultimate convenience where I can post everything in one place?

MySpace has enlisted the help of actor/pop artist Justin Timberlake to promote the revival of the site. (Lest we forget Justin Timberlake played a starring role in The Social Network. Irony?) Can MySpace overcome its dismissive reputation? Will JT & co. be able to convince the world to join up with YET ANOTHER social media platform, where of course gathering information and marketing segmentation of its users is the bottom line? Googling "MySpace comeback" produces dozens of news articles on the subject, but the tone does not seem supportive. "Justin Timberlake tries to bring MySpace back" and "Justin Timberlake's MySpace Comeback Destined For Failure" are two of the top results. Well, I guess only time will tell! If millions of people return to their forgotten accounts with new inspiration,  less-than-stellar reviews from traditional news sources won't mean much.

Red Bull Does It Right

Our first project of the semester requires us to analyze the marketing strategies a company uses through its use of applications such as social media, web promotions through videos or emails, and any other specific marketing tools that particular company has employed. Our group is studying Red Bull, and boy do they have a real flair for engaging their customers.

Red Bull is the fifth most-liked company on Facebook, with over 32 million fans. Visit their page, and you'll see something interesting. Not only do they promote new products such as the new Blue, Silver, and Red canned drinks, but the overwhelming majority of the plentiful pictures posted are of people doing extreme sports, with the Red Bull logo just barely visible on the athlete's helmet or gear. Red Bull has become more than a brand: it's a lifestyle. The partier, the extreme athlete, and any combination thereof, they all follow the Red Bull lifestyle. Sure, most people probably use Red Bull as a convenient caffeine source to get through another boring day of school or work, but that is not the image that they have successfully associated with their name. Red Bull is about youth, fun, and excitement. And who doesn't want a little more of those in their life, especially when they come in a can?

Red Bull teams up with bands, celebrities, and athletes to better reach their target markets. They work internationally, nearly half of the Facebook posts are in a language other than English. It's silly to think that all 32 million of those fans are English-speakers, and seeing these perplexing posts only reinforces to the audience how Red Bull so is much more than an energy drink.

I'm not a Red Bull drinker, personally. But that didn't stop me from wishing that I did while combing through the pictures and videos available through their Facebook and Twitter pages. The association has been made in my brain that drinking Red Bull makes you inherently more awesome. If that's not effective marketing, I don't know what is. Red Bull maintains visibility in the media by sponsoring all types of sport events, from the record-breaking Stratos freefall to breakdancing competitions, to musical events across the globe. Spending money to give an aspiring breakdancer their chance at fame is PR work and advertising all in one. When it comes to marketing, on and offline, Red Bull does it right.

How Much is a Facebook Fan Worth?

In our textbook, "Internet Marketing: Integrating Online & Offline Strategies" by Roberts and Zahay (third edition), there is a very interesting pie chart that proclaims to show "the estimated value of a Facebook fan." Of course Facebook fans have value, social media is a proven vehicle for successful marketing, but I wondered how Syncapse Corp could possibly draw these specific monetary conclusions. Unfortunately, Syncapse Corp does not let you simply view their files on the subject, so I'll have to use outside sources which have drawn significantly different conclusions on the same topic. 

According to a study conducted by social media agency SocialCode, they have concluded that the average Facebook fan is worth only $10. That seems much more reasonable to me. I myself am a fan of many companies, film/television studios, and projects on Facebook, but I cannot claim to have spent anywhere near $136.38 supporting any of them, except perhaps one or two involving my strongest interests that exist independent of a single Facebook fan page. 

But SocialCode's study was pretty thorough: "Looking at more than 5 million Facebook ads placed by over 50 clients (spanning verticals, but mostly in consumer packaged goods, auto and finance) from between May and September of this year, the study looked at the cost of acquiring new fans, and what it took to get them to perform a desired action." http://adage.com/article/digital/study-facebook-fan-worth-10-average-brands/231128/

The $10 comes from "assuming the constant cost-per-click of $1," says the top of the article. Is a click really worth $1? To many companies claiming their slice of the Facebook pie, yes it is. And the fact that Facebook fans are 291% more likely to engage with the brand than non-fans seems like a pretty solid venture. I, however, am still skeptical about the truth worth of a "click." Our book defines CPC as the cost of the ad, divided by the audience, times one thousand. CPC is an analytic tool that any marketer with access to their company’s insight information can see and interpret. I suppose that ultimately, a fair share of those clicks will lead to a purchase, and then that Facebook fan has significant monetary worth. But $10, let alone $136.38? I think I need to take a look at the Google analytics section for some of these online marketing campaigns. 

The Future of Film Marketing

I have always been interested in entertainment marketing. Recently, I've begun noting upon the shift it is taking from traditional forms of advertisement towards the web.

Today, of the 49% of moviegoers who admit to researching films before they decide to see them, 70% use the internet to for this information. This means that studios are budgeting more and more money for online ads and campaigns, to be focused on the film's key demographics.

Now, in the past, we have seen this strategy fail (everyone remember "Snakes on a Plane"? Tons of internet hype, terrible box office turnout). But recently, advertising agencies seem to be getting the hang of it. This year's "The Hunger Games" was a huge financial success, and their marketing campaign was largely internet-based. This campaign included virtual tours of the capitol where users could register as citizens in Panem, as well as aligning the film with non-profit organizations that fight hunger (smart!).

This is where the distinction between paid and non-paid search comes in, which we discussed in class today. Paid search is usually only utilized for major releases from big studios, or at least that has been the trend so far. Perhaps this is where "Snakes on a Plane" fell behind, and where "The Hunger Games" had the advantage. Lionsgate shelled out the money for clips and teasers to show on Youtube and other video-sharing sites. They hit the social media sites with everything they had (see the NYT video for details). The very loyal existing fanbase from the book trilogy helped spread the hype for Lionsgate for free.

The future of marketing for traditional media (going to see a film at the movie theatre is very traditional by today's standards) lies on the internet. Consider that almost a million people are currently registered as citizens of Panem. That is the result of a marketing campaign that has created lasting investment in the series.

"Lost," In Memoriam

Hello everyone, and welcome to my Internet Marketing blog! Sixty percent of my classes this semester have the word "marketing" in the title, so I hope to be of some interest to those of you with knowledge of the subject. Mostly, I think I'll post about the marketing concepts discussed in class, my impressions and ideas regarding the state of online marketing and business, and references to any cool online campaigns I've seen recently.

Whenever I think about good viral marketing campaigns, the first one that comes to mind is the way they advertised the TV show "Lost." It wasn't remarkable by today's standards, but I remember at the time, I thought that the concept of reaching viewers online with puzzles and riddles was just the coolest thing ever. The "Lost" marketing team created literally dozens of non-fictional looking websites that seemed to belong to corporations or movements depicted in the show. Within these websites were hundreds of "secret pages," where fictitious hackers attempted to expose the lies of companies such as the Hanso Foundation or Dharma Initiative. These sites often had "career" sections where users could register for exclusive access to even more secret pages, often providing a staggering amount of additional content and backstory to what they could watch on the show every week. Dedicated fans, of which "Lost" had many, could spend hours pouring over these websites to find answers to their favorite mysteries. To this day, I think that modern online campaigns for television, even with the countless tools available to them that weren't around in 2004-2010, could not pull off the stunts that Lost's marketing strategists did, purely because the nature of the show provided such limitless opportunities for fan involvement and reward.

Here's a great blog post about the sheer volume of Lost's ad campaign: http://www.nickburcher.com/2008/01/5-great-examples-of-viral-marketing-for.html