« September 2011 | Main | November 2011 »
The snap tag is being billed as the new, sexier QR code. Don't like those ugly, confusing QR codes? Use this sexy snap circle; it's so much better.
The snap tag is more aesthetically pleasing and easier to brand, to be sure. It's a wide circle with the lion's share of white space available for logo branding. But the lack of popular uptake of QR codes isn't due to the technology or appearance of the code; it has more to do with the fact that brands aren't doing anything more exciting with it than linking to their home page or Facebook page. The snap code does show improvement over the QR code for ease of use and accessibility; granted, there is a benefit to using a code that is available to all phone users, not just the 11% or so that have QR readers on their smartphones and know how to use them.
However, the code's appearance is not the primary reason why these codes haven't taken off as marketing gold yet. The reason has more to do with this statement from the above article--this is NOT a benefit of using ANY type of code, snap or QR:
Rather than taking them to a micro site, they are taken to a brand’s Facebook or Twitter page.
Really? I can go to your Facebook page that anyone else can see at any time with absolutely no special offers or benefits because I used a snap code? Sign me up.
No, wait; don't.
As with QR codes, the successful campaigns will be those that take into account the consumer desire for engagement and unique, tailored content. Linking to a static page with recycled content is no way to reward consumers for participating in a new trend or for embracing new technology. It is not original, creative or innovative in any way. It does not provide any motivation for fans or consumers to participate.
The fact that new technology is available and can link to your Facebook page (whoop dee do) isn't enough to embrace it. I wrote earlier this week about creative ways to use QR codes that have successfully engaged fans on an ongoing basis.
Six questions to ask yourself before starting a QR or snap campaign
Snap codes may have a few aesthetic advantages over QR codes, but don't be fooled. The secret is in the strategy and implementation. With either code, you will not see results unless you begin with the following questions:
What additional strategies would you add?
When Chapstick posted an ad featuring a woman's posterior instead of its usual images of empowerment, fans objected. And in an enormous social media faux pas, Chapstick deleted all negative comments from its page and called its fans spammers.
ChapStick, we’re through. My family will not be using your brand again. I tried to tell you why on Facebook, but you deleted my comment. You deleted the comments of many, many women who spoke out against your objectifying ad ”Where Do Lost ChapSticks Go?” prominently featuring the back end of a woman bent over a couch. In fact, before you deleted it, the photo file uploaded to your page by some intern was labeled “Ass”.
But the issue with the ad being interpreted as sexist rather than empowering was the least of the brand's problems. Every brand at some point tries something new with a campaign. And sometimes the quirky humor falls flat or simply doesn't resonate with the brand's most devoted fans. The fact that the ad garnered a negative reaction isn't Chapstick's worst offense. As so many brands have learned before (remember Motrin Moms?), it was Chapstick's response to the criticism that showed its awkward, opaque social media feathers. Adweek covers the backlash in a nutshell:
ChapStick posts weird image on Facebook of a woman, ass in the air, looking for her ChapStick behind a couch. Blogger is disgusted, blogs about it. Blogger tries to reply on Facebook too. ChapStick deletes her comments. Others object to the image. ChapStick deletes their comments. ChapStick's ads with the line "Be heard at Facebook.com/ChapStick" start to look foolish. People keep commenting. ChapStick keeps deleting. People get angry. ChapStick gets worried.
That's not the worst of it
The most offensive element of the fiasco was Chapstick's clueless and naïve idea that by deleting negative comments on Facebook, somehow the objections to the ad would magically disappear. Apparently, the brand was unaware that fans who are denied a voice on one social media channel will flock to their own channels, and the maelstrom of negative press will only gather speed and force. The internet and social media sites exploded with criticism of the brand's handling of the controversy, notably with it's lackluster, it's-not-me-it's-you "apology":
We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted and while we never intend to pull anyone's comments off our wall, we do comply with Facebook guidelines and remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees.
So, AdWeek concludes, to those ChapStick fans whose comments were deleted—it was all your fault, you obnoxious, foul-mouthed, menacing spambots! Seriously, maybe just shut down the whole page at this point.
Blaming your fans for justified criticism when the campaign was claiming transparency and asking for engagement? Not Chapstick's finest moment. Accusing its fans of being foul-mouthed spammers in no way supports the brand's stated goal of transparency and open conversations. In social media, the general rule is to take the bad with the good. If your brand is strong, your own fans will defend it against unreasonable attacks.
Forbes blogger Samatha Ettus included a "dream apology" that Chapstick should have made:
We are so sorry for using poor judgment in putting up this ad. Thanks to social media, our awareness of the reaction emerged speedily and we were able to respond immediately by taking it down. Our consciousness has been raised and for that we are grateful. We have taken this lesson to heart and will not be creating any advertising that is or could be construed as objectifying women in any way. Just like you might forgive an old friend who messes up for the first time, I hope that you will return to us, unscathed from our mishap. Thanks for your understanding.
How the apology should have read
I disagree. I don't think Chapstick or any brand is best served by rolling over and begging for forgiveness when it simply tried a campaign that didn't go over as anticipated. It posted an ad in good faith that simply didn't happen to resonate with its brand ambassadors; a groveling apology isn't necessary. Social media is about relationships, and this apology provided a golden opportunity not only to reinforce the brand message but also to build stronger relationships with its fans. Chapstick would be better served by speaking to its fans on a personal level, just as the Facebook campaign claims the brand is open to doing:
Thanks to everyone who gave us feedback on this ad. We intended the ad to be whimsical and didn't intend any disrespect with the image, but we are listening to those of you who have shared with us your negative opinions regarding the ad and have made the decision to remove it based on your feedback.
At Chapstick, we recognize that our fans are our most valuable asset. When we create something that doesn't resonate with you or doesn't suit your needs, we want to hear it. Likewise, when we do, we want to hear that, too. We're listening. It takes strength to stand up and say "you're wrong," and it takes strength to hear it and say "you're right."
As for our Facebook response, there was no excuse for that. With a goal of transparency, we should never have deleted the negative comments and have restored all comments to the site, positive and negative alike. We're sorry. In the future, all comments (that do not include obscenity) will always be posted. Comment away!
And our moderators have been punished: we put Chapstick in their jeans and ran them through the wash.
That is what I would have liked to see from Chapstick: the honesty, empowerment and a dash of humor that have been the hallmarks of the brand until now.
Want to fight corporate greed and rampant consumerism? Do what I did: fund a cow for Christmas.
Last December, I wasn't in a great place. Eighteen months in to my Seattle adventure, I still hadn't formed really close relationships (that damn Seattle freeze!) and had no place to go for the holidays. Work was great; the social media crowd was great; but one of the downsides of the holiday season is that it makes one miss family. Even those without a close family miss their nonexistant close families. Go figure.
So I decided to dump a bucket of perspective on my life. I had a challenging job with a successful startup, a web of brilliant and friendly contacts in the Seattle area, and a good income. I'm not exactly the 1%, but what was I complaining about, exactly?
Then I found Kiva, full of people far less well-off than me. Instead of purchasing a holiday gift for myself, I found a project to support someone who was in dire need for basic necessities. Her name is Chor Chreb, and she lives in Cambodia. She is 31, a garment factory worker, married with one child who is still living at home, and her husband is a farmer. She typically makes about $3 each day, and she was looking for a loan of $400 to purchase a cow to help with farm work.
I had budgeted $100 and saw that the loan was 75% funded, so I created an account and made the $100 loan.
Since then, I have received periodic emails from Kiva as she made regular loan payments. This week, this notice arrived:
Such a decision! I loved this feeling of seeing the small amounts being paid back; they are timely reminders that a small gesture from me helped someone to make a better life for herself and her family. The idea of donating to Kiva to cover operating expenses is tempting, however; organizing the site, taking the photos and sending the emails must be costly. Such a difficult decision! Should I re-donate to another loan or send the balance directly to Kiva?
No matter what that decision, let's look at it this way. If I had purchased some electronic gizmo last year, it would probably already be outdated by now. An expensive meal would be forgotten; new shoes would be last year's news. But this?
Giving feels good
In Les Liaisons Dangereuses, the Vicomte de Valmont fakes an act of charity in order to win over Cécile de Volanges. His observation after the act: "I was astonished at the pleasure to be derived from doing good." He concludes that do-gooders are actually quite selfish, since they derive pleasure and self-satisfaction from their good works.
Count me in for that kind of selfish.
And likewise, the wise muppets of Avenue Q sing:
When you help others/You can't help helping yourself...
Every time you do good deeds/you're also servin' your own needs.
Ah, so true. This is the secret selfishness of giving--it feels really good. I'm not sure about the being closer to god part, but this gift has given me more satisfaction and ongoing joy and purpose than anything else I could have purchased.
Of course I still want the cute shoes. Of course I still want an iPad and the new iPhone. But that rampant consumerism will be with me for a long time; I am American, after all. If you want a break from that for a season, though, a Cambodian cow is the way to go. Go ahead. Hit Kiva and see what it feels like to be the 1% to someone.
What is the point of QR codes?
QR codes have been sneaking into print ads, store windows and even billboards over the last two years. These bar-code boxes seemed to promise a specialized, quick response to marketers... except they didn't.
QR (Quick Response) codes are matrix barcodes originally designed to track parts in the automotive industry. Marketers grabbed hold of the concept and began inserting them into ads, flyers and campaigns. The problem is that they did it rather willy-nilly and without any particular strategy. And marketing lacking a clear strategy will always be doomed to fail.
To date, QR code usage has been rather like that of those early brick cellphones: the people who bought them and used them in public thought they looked cool, but really, they just looked like giant d-bags. It was easier, far less expensive and less pretentious just to walk to a pay phone. Essentially, a lot of development in terms of thought leadership, design (thank you, Steve Jobs) and best practices for usage needed to happen before those bricks became household essentials.
The same is true for QR codes. Having a bar code that is scannable to a URL is a cool idea, but... so what? It's a tool, and the marketing community at large hasn't yet found the best way to make use of this particular medium.
Let's do a quick survey. How many of you have whipped out your smartphone and scanned a QR code somewhere? Did the scanned URL EVER provide any material, information or offer that was unique or engaging in any way.
Yeah, me, neither. In fact, in a survey of 300 people, only 11% even knew what the QR code was. Of those, only 45% were able to scan the code correctly using their phones, and it took them an average of 47 seconds to do so.
So there are a few issues here. The technology isn't known nor easily recognized, and it isn't easily accessed, either, despite its name. But Derek Johnson of Tatango points out that there are some more relevant metrics we could be looking at, such as 40% of consumers aged 25-34 have scanned a QR code and that one out of three consumers who have scanned a QR code have an average household income of over $100,000. Any advertiser ears perking up yet?
Marketers are doing it wrong
However, the adoption and use rate of the technology isn't the biggest issue preventing QR codes from becoming the Next Big Thing. The biggest issue preventing the QR code from becoming the next cool thing is that marketers aren't making its use engaging, innovate or revolutionary.
Linking to your website? Not that exciting.
The good news is that some practitioners have made strides in QR code marketing that is both engaging and effective. In this post, Sean Cummings recommends a few creative uses for the QR code, including using them to clue a scavenger hunt, which would hit both the buttons of engagement and curiosity. Also, the aforementioned Johnson has put out a video demo on a currently successful best practice for QR codes: opting in to SMS marketing campaigns.
Tatango, an SMS marketing company, has also put out a beginner's guide to QR codes and SMS marketing that shows some ethical creativity in their use.
No argument that the technology hasn't been fully adopted by a large percentage of the population. However, within the folks that do participate in the QR trend, there is a vast reserve of untapped potential for brand communication. Within QR codes lurks a huge array of possibilities for engaging those consumers, if marketers can put their creative minds to use and think like... well, marketers.
It's been five years--and the Tweet goes on
Hat tip to Dan York for inspiring me to write this post. Turns out he and I have the same TwBirthday; we both started Twitter five years ago today, on October 24, 2006.
Dan of course remembers the day and date due to his high level of geek cred. I remember because a 'bot reminded me.
In 2006, I was stamping my geek feet in annoyance that I hadn't been able to get to SXSW, where Twitter hit the scene and I wasn't lucky enough to be among the first cool kids to try it out. But, since my gateway drug to social media was podcasting, a field in which I became entrenched in early 2005, I heard about Twitter on my then- and still-favorite social media and PR podcast, For Immediate Release.
Shel and Neville made it sound interesting, so I created an account with Chris Brogan as my godfather and took a stab at Tweeting. Brilliant it wasn't: "Trying out Twitter. I don't get it."
Since then, a lot has changed about how I use Twitter. At that time, I remember saying that I didn't believe I could really follow and consume content from more than about 200 people at a time. As Twitter exploded, that idea changed, and filters were created.
Following, Filtering and Conversion
Now, I have a policy of following people that I meet or strangers who follow but whose content is interesting. I do open HootSuite and check my feeds every day, but under the veil of a few filters. I check the main feed rarely; I've set up lists on my personal account of my favorite social media Tweeters and of my Seattle Tweeps. We all stay very busy, so Twitter is where I have conversations with people that I only get to see in person once a month or better. Here is an example: I rarely get to see the awesome developer goodness that is my friend Sasha, since we both work for startups, but look at this great two-way conversation from this morning:
The transition to widespread use of Twitter has been fascinating. In 2007 up through last year, I would still often hear the defensive: "I don't Twitter. I don't see the point." And then, grudgingly, even my dear friend and last Twitter holdout created an account just last week with the purchase of a new iPhone. His curmudgeonly excuse? "The iPhone 4s really wants you to Tweet."
How I use Twitter today
These days, I use Twitter in a few different ways. Yes, I use it for real conversations. I use it to bookmark interesting articles and videos that aren't quite blog-worthy. I use it to express solidarity with causes and outrage at events. I use it to crowdsource presentations and talks (just did this last week, in fact). I use it to help others find jobs, provide customer service and to get an afternoon chuckle. I use it to catalogue both joy and pain. I use it to solidify friendships, share photos and establish clients as information resources.
Over the past few years, I've written a bit on Best and Worst Practices for Twitter:
Twitter Best Practices
Best Practices for Twitter, Part 1
Best Practices for Twitter, Part Deux
Best Practices for Twitter, Part 3: Twittering Your Brand
Best Practices for Twitter, Part 4: Rules of the Repeat Tweet
Twitter Worst Practices
How Not to Do Customer Service on Twitter
But really, it comes down to this: Twitter has proven to be a great tool for staying in touch, catching news and stimulating conversation in a world that is just too busy. Whether I'm using it for business or posting photos of the French toast I just ordered, it's a way for me to stay connected with friends and thought leaders alike.
The life path of a visionary
As the plethora of tributes to and memories of the visionary Steve Jobs roll through social media channels, a few themes surface. This is a man who chose to live life to the fullest each day but didn't fall into the trap of self-indulgence. Instead, his passion drove him to a dogmatic ideal of design simplicity, an almost supernatural insight into unstated consumer desires and an insistence on quality.
He was both artist and engineer, idealist and producer, hippie and capitalist. If I've ever used the word "American" in a flattering sense, it would be to describe Steve Jobs. His path to success wasn't a steady upward climb, but his vision always was.
In every day of his life, he mirrored the philosophy he shared with the 2005 graduating class at Stanford:
"Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything -- all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart. ... Stay hungry. Stay foolish."
Wise words. Wise life.
A tribute to the innovator who inspired a generation of content creators
Steve Jobs was more than an innovator; he was a visionary. His legacy is most powerful not just in the way it changed the face of technology but by how it unleashed the creative potential in all of us. Jobs made users into content creators.
In 1991, I was finishing my B.A. in French literature and trying to make the argument to my father that I wanted a Mac, not a PC. My dad the engineer assured me that the Compaq Presario hepurchased for me was much more flexible than the Mac I wanted.
He was wrong.
My first job out of grad school in 1993 was developing French textbooks for an educational publisher, and we all used Macs. I got used to bouncing between a Mac at work and a PC at home. In 2003, I purchased my first iBook G4. I pulled the shiny white rectangle out of the box and squealed with glee. I kept calling my boyfriend to ask him how to download drivers and software, and he chuckled, "Honey, you have a Mac now. You don't need any of that anymore. Don't make it complicated. Just think of how you want to do something, and that will be the way to do it."
The true definition of "intuitive interface." I let go of all the complicated processes I'd become accustomed to with the PCs I'd owned over the years and went with my intuition. It was a beautiful thing.
Then, when I began to do more design work, I added an iMac to my workspace. Then a MacBook. Then an iPhone, MacBookAir and MacBookPro.
Every piece of content I have created over the last 10 years would not have been possible without Steve Jobs' vision, innovation and dogged insitence on simplicity of use. Unlike others in the field, I don't have a background in coding, engineering or any type of geek cred at all. Without Jobs' streamlined, intuitive interfaces, I would not have become a blogger, podcaster, speaker, video editor, audio editor, social media manager... none of it.
iMovie When I first began consulting as a speaker and narrator, I had to pay a studio to edit together a demo reel for me. But the next iteration I created and edited together myself on iMovie, which had been bundled with my latest Mac. That demo reel got me every job I had for the next five years and allowed me to break away from agencies and become a successful entrepreneur, with my own narration, speaking and voiceover consultancy.
GarageBand and iTunes In the spring of 2005, I laid down and edited my first podcast. That podcast has since podfaded, but one of my podcasts has been running continuously since then, with almost 300 syndicated episodes and still maintaining 50,000 downloads a month. Granted, I did much of the early editing on Audacity, which allows for finer editing than GarageBand, but GarageBand had the benefit of being easy to use with multiple tracks. When Apple released iTunes 4.9 three months later, making podcasts available to the broader public through iTunes as a podcatcher, the market exploded, and suddenly I had company in the field. Some of my best colleagues, friends and mentors were through conversations in those early days of podcasting, and I treasure those relationships to this day. It was through podcasting that I came to meet Steve Eley, Violet Blue, Shel Holtz, C.C. Chapman and a host of others. As someone who did not identify as a tech geek at the time, I'm quite certain I would never have even approached the challenge of podcasting and developed the concurrent relationships without Apple products.
iPhone If podcasting was my gateway drug to geekdom, the iPhone sealed my fate. I received my first iPhone as a gift in 2008 and never looked back. The iPhone facilitated connectivity and fed my addiction to photo documentation of events. Since then, my iPhone has become my camera, my podcast microphone, my personal assistant, my social media manager, my navigator, my library and my connection to friends 2,000 miles away.
When I look back at my adult life, none of it would have been possible without Steve Jobs' extraordinary vision. He knew what people needed in order to unleash their creativity. He made us content creators instead of consumers. He made it easy to build a business, to express ourselves and to share with others.
RIP, Steve Jobs. You have changed our lives for the better.
