Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Posted 28 February 2008 - 04:34 AM
I am trying to develop an idea on how best to market in the online space.
Any one has any ideas on how PR companies ought to market in Social n/w sites?
We have all heard of flogs and how Walmart, Sony, and MacDonalds were flogged in the blogspace..
This leads to a dilemma for marketers as to how to tread the path...
When you look at PR done in other channels such as TV or Print there are awful lot of flog-stuff that is floating...
WOMMA and couple of other organizations have attempted to draft an ethics guideline for online marketing...
But then again I dont know how much they can impose on marketers?
The general view however is that this is inappropriate in this medium
What then is the best way out?
Should one for instance declare that I am advertiser? and then go on ...
Are there specific sites that serve this need without being thougt of as inappropriate?
Posted 28 February 2008 - 10:50 AM
For instance, one of my regular jobs is for a pet product company. If I started a blog about pets (which, as yet I haven't) and if the blog was genuinely useful to the target market, then what's the problem with talking about the products for sale and the activities of the company?
Alternatively, if I started a blog about pets and either pretended that I wasn't connected with the pet company (which I believe was the problem with Walmart et al), and/or only blogged for the benefit of getting lots of juicy keywords and links without any effort on providing something interesting or valuable to real visitors, then that would be somewhat unethical. Additionally, it would most likely be worthless to visitors, so anyone who visits would probably see it for what it is and think less of me and/or the company I'm working for - but that's a whole other discussion.
JMHO, hope it helps.
Posted 28 February 2008 - 12:21 PM
Posted 28 February 2008 - 02:32 PM
That's not really the goal, is it?
I think there's room for commercial interests in social media- you just have to be creative about it. Make something so cool that people want to talk about it, instead of paying shills to talk about it for instance.
Posted 28 February 2008 - 04:49 PM
If self-interest is your only goal, then you are in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing. It's OK to have your own interests, but to ignore the interests of others is by definition anti-social and doesn't belong in "social media".
In short, are you joining a conversation, or trying to control it? I think that a lot of companies simply cannot, due to their corporate culture, engage in social media properly. If it's against policy to allow negative comments, or to be involved in an activity in anything but a leadership (control) position, then you really don't belong in the social media sphere. Go buy ads, or start a blog with the comments turned off, or something similarly one-sided.
What I think is unethical is the marketers that are advising these companies to start social media campaigns, without making certain that they are doing it correctly, or are even capable of doing it correctly. Some companies are perfect for social media, some can adapt to it, and some are better off doing something else. One size does not fit all, and you should know your client before advising them of anything.
Posted 28 February 2008 - 06:23 PM
We have to remember that tolerance for online commercial behavior is often less forgiving.
TV/radio/publications have always assumed a sort of ownership over their 'eyeballs.' These days assuming such ownership is considered unethical though it is still the basis of many models, successful and unsuccessful.
At the end of the day even Google assumes ownership over their 'traffic' of which you can buy a piece as an advertiser. They consider their publications to be the natural SERPs & the sponsored results to be the
At the end of the day I don't think this is a serious 'ethical issue' in the same way that product disclosure or many other issues to do with marketing. Its more like etiquette. It's a matter of having those you interact with like you or alienating them. Online, etiquette is more in the hands of the public. Marketers cannot make you sit through ads you don't want anymore. When they (marketers) try you (the consumer/visitor) object. If they continue to push, enmity is created and you alienate.
In an analogy with personal ethics/etiquette I would say that pushing marketing material is similar to speaking with your mouth full in England or speaking loudly at the table in many cultures. On the other hand, product disclosure, dine & dash techniques and a variety of other practices (that are and have always been unethical) are more similar to robbing or assaulting your dinner guests.
Online culture is slightly different to radio culture. It comes with a new etiquette (Religious pilgrims immigrating to the young US would have had a very different sense of etiquette and to a lesser degree a different sense of ethics to Modern US citizens). Ethical concerns move more slowly, though they probably will be influenced by the new online world.
Basically, to blog or not to blog is not usually an ethical issue. (though charging clients to facilitate a bound to be unsuccessful blog may be) It may not be well received despite this.
Posted 29 February 2008 - 01:14 AM
I am truly grateful to all for the useful insight.
I have recently learnt SEO and wished to develop an approach that is fair and also generate ROI for clients.
It has certainly brought to light how we can all be honest and yet perhaps use these mediums as a marketing channel.
With Google and several other search engines placing a high quotient on inbound links it had seemed very tempting to indulge in building fake blogs.
However, as always truth prevails.
Rolf's example of the pet products showcases just the approach needed.
However, this is certainly long term in terms of results against the instant gratification that most people look for.
I guess its a matter of campaigning and convincing marketers on the merits of having such an approach.
Mcanerin - thanks the social and anti-social metaphor drives the point wholly!
Nethy - thanks for commenting on transitioning of the methods of traditional media to this media. I guess its more of etiquette than ethics - and then again you can only have good etiquette if you have good ethics!
Posted 03 March 2008 - 01:02 AM
To me this is a very interesting topic. These corporate cultures are the result of many environmental factors. As many of the more interesting analysts comment: The giant corporations of the 20th that have built massive brands with massive awareness & guaranteed shelf space (metaphorically & physically) through the strength of brands created (or at least partly created) on the television, radio, print, & highway banners (more or less in that order). They didn't simply use available channels of communications to 'promote' their preexisting brands, products, companies etc. They created (whether directly or by a process of corporate darwinism) companies that leverage the available media.
In effect, the media available to the companies defined them(on the demand side of the equation), their brands & their products in at the same time that technological advancements in manufacturing defined the companies. Products that didn't not lend to mass production did not become 'household brands' & products that did not lend to mass media advertising suffered a similar fate.
Seems that thing have changed. Social media seems be a part of this major change in media. The rules here are different. You cannot buy 'eyeballs' any in the same way any more then you could get adults to watch sponge bob.
It's not going to bring down the world on top of the major brands. But it seems that corporations with the 'wrong corporate culture' that doesn't allow social media to be successful will need to adapt or fail to adapt (whatever the consequences).
At the end of the day, ethical or not, it is not surprising to see some Unilever or their smaller versions throw money at attempting to participate in this media. Participation in media has always been important to them.
The fact that their corporate culture pretty much excludes them from success in the field is almost irrelevant to their decision to try. Accepting that this media will require them to be different is almost like the record companies accepting that music is now free.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users