In recent years there has been a necessary shift in the way businesses advertise themselves to consumers, thanks to the increasingly common information overload experienced by the average person.
In 1945, just after WWII, the annual total ad spend in the United States was about $2.8 billion (that's around $36.8 billion after adjusting for inflation). In 2013, it was around $140 billion.
Don't forget that this is just paid media advertising; it doesn't include the many types of earned coverage like search, social, email, supermarket displays, direct mail and so on. Alongside the growth in media spends is a growth in the sheer volume of products available, which is made possible by increasingly sophisticated technologies for sales, inventory, delivery and so on.
What does this mean? Well, simply that the strategy of 'just buy some ads and sell the benefits' isn't enough anymore: you'll be lost in the noise. How can a brand retain customers and create loyalty in an atmosphere where everyone else has a better offer? Through tapping into the psychology of social relationships.
Imagine that you are at home for Thanksgiving, and your mother has pulled out all the stops to lovingly craft the most delicious, intricate dinner ever known to man. You and your family have enjoyed a wonderful afternoon of socializing and snacking on leftovers and watching football, and now it's time to leave. As you hug your parents goodbye, you take out your wallet. "How much do I owe you for all the love and time you put into this wonderful afternoon?" you ask. "$100 for the food? here, have $50 more as a thank you for the great hospitality!" How would your mother respond to such an offer? I don't know about your mother, but my mom would be deeply offended.
New scenario: You've gone to a restaurant for Thanksgiving dinner. It's the most delicious dinner you've ever had, the atmosphere is great with the football playing in the background, and best of all, your server is attentive, warm, and maternal. You feel right at home. At the end of the meal, you give her a hug and thank her for the delicious meal before leaving. She calls the cops and has you arrested for a dine-and-dash.
And herein lies the difference between social norms and market norms.
Social norms vs. market norms
The Thanksgiving dinner example is one which I've borrowed from a book by Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. Ariely discusses two ways in which humans interact: social norms and market norms.
Social norms, as Ariely explains, "are wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy. Instant paybacks are not required." Examples would be: helping a friend move house, babysitting your grandchild, having your parents over for dinner. There is an implied reciprocity on some level but it is not instantaneous nor is it expected that the action will be repaid on a financial level. These are the sort of relationships and interactions we expect to have with friends and family.
Market norms, on the other hand, are about the exchange of resources and in particular, money. Examples of this type of interaction would be any type of business transaction where goods or services are exchanged for money: wages, prices, rents, interest, and cost-and-benefit. These are the sort of relationships and interactions we expect to have with businesses.
Market norms come into play any time money enters into the equation, sometimes counter-intuitively! Ariely gives the example of a group of lawyers who were approached by the AARP and asked whether they would provide legal services to needy retirees at a drastically discounted rate of $30/hour. The lawyers said no. From a market norms perspective, the exchange didn't make sense. Later the same lawyers were asked whether they would consider donating their time free of charge to needy retirees. The vast majority of the lawyers said yes. The difference is that, when no money changes hands, the exchange shifts from a poor-value market exchange to an altruistic and therefore high-value social exchange. It is a strange psychological quirk that 'once market norms enter our considerations, the social norms depart.'
Mixed signals: when social and market norms collide
In a book called Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind by Al Ries and Jack Trout (originally published in 1981), the authors describe the 1950s as the 'product era' of advertising, when 'advertising people focused their attention on product features and customer benefits.' It was all about the unique selling proposition (USP).
In this case, the USP is mildness: "not one single case of throat irritation!" (image source)
However, as the sheer volume of products on the market increased, it became more difficult to sell a product simply by pointing out the benefits. As Ries and Trout put it, 'Your "better mousetrap" was quickly followed by two more just like it. Both claiming to be better than the first one.'
They describe the next phase of advertising (which hit its peak in the 1960s and 70s and which we can probably all relate to if we watch Mad Men) as the 'image era', pioneered by David Ogilvy. In this period, successful campaigns sold the reputation, or 'image' of a brand and a product rather than its features. Ries and Trout quote Ogilvy as saying that 'Every advertisement is a long-term investment in the image of a brand'. Examples include Hathaway shirts and Rolls-Royce.
Rather than the product benefits, this ad focuses on the 'image' of the man who smokes Viceroys: "Viceroy has a thinking man's filter and a smoking man's taste. (image source)
But yet again, as more and more brands imitate the strategy of these successful campaigns, the space gets more crowded and the consumer becomes more jaded and these techniques become less effective.
According to Ries and Trout, this brought the world of advertising into the 'positioning era' of the 80s, which is where they positioned (hehe) themselves. As they described this, "To succeed in our overcommunicated society, a company must create a position in the prospect's mind, a position that takes into consideration not only a company's own strengths and weaknesses, but those of its competitors as well."
This one's all about positioning Winston's in opposition to competitors: as the brand with real taste, as opposed to other brands which 'promise taste' but fail to deliver. (image source)
And yet, despite this evolution of advertising strategy over the course of the 20th century, all of these different approaches are ultimately based on market norms. The 'product era' sells you features and benefits in exchange for money; the 'image era' sells you on an image and a lifestyle in exchange for money, and the 'positioning era' sells you on why a particular company is the right one to supply your needs in exchange for money.
Social norms and loyalty
When does cheap not win? When it comes to social norms. Social norms are about relationships, community and loyalty. If your sister is getting married, you don't do a cost benefit analysis to decide whether or not you should go to her wedding or whether the food will be better and the travel cheaper if you go to your next door neighbor's BBQ instead. If anything, it's the opposite: some people take it to such an extreme that they will go into massive debt to attend friends' weddings and bring lavish gifts. That is certainly not a decision based on monetary considerations.
Therefore, if the average brand wants to get out of the vicious cycle of undercutting competitors in order to gain business, they need to start focusing on relationships and community building instead of 'SUPER CHEAP BEST LOW LOW PRICES!!®' and sneaky upsells at the point of sale. This is something my colleague Tim Allen spoke about in a presentation called "Make Me Love Your Brand, Not Just Tolerate It". And this is what a large number of recent 'advertising success stories' are based on and it's the whole premise behind many of the more recent trends in marketing: email marketing, personalization, SMS marketing, good social media marketing, and so on.
Some of the most popular brands are the ones which are able to find the perfect balance between:
- a friendly, warm relationship with customers and potential customers, which also often includes a fun, personal tone of voice (the 'brand personality') - in these interactions there is often an offering of something to the customer without an expectation of instant payback, and
- a strong product which they offer at a good price with good 'market' benefits like free returns and so on.
One example of this is John Lewis, who have good customer service policies around returns etc but also offer free perks to their shoppers, like the maternity room where breastfeeding mothers can relax. One of my colleagues mentioned that, as a new mother, his girlfriend always prefers to shop at John Lewis over other competitor stores for that very reason. Now if this is purely a convenience factor for her, and after her child is older she stops shopping at John Lewis in favor of a cheaper option, you could argue that this is less of a social interaction and more market influenced (in some sense it serves as a service differentiator between JL and their customers). However, if after she no longer requires the service, she continues to shop there because she wants to reciprocate their past support of her as a breastfeeding mother, that pushes it more firmly into the realm of the social.
Another thing John Lewis do for their fans is the annual Christmas ad, which (much like the Coca-Cola Santa truck in the UK) has become something which people look forward to each year because it's a heartwarming little story more than just an ad for a home and garden store. Their 2012 ad was my favorite (and a lot of other people's too, with over 4.5 million Youtube views).
But usually anytime a brand 'do something nice' for no immediate monetary benefit, it counts as a 'social' interaction - a classic example is Sainsbury's response to the little girl who wrote to them about 'tiger bread'.
Some of my other favorite examples of social norm interactions by brands are:
- Red Bull Wings, which is an initiative from Red Bull where they monitor Twitter for mentions of things like #allnighter and #midterms and then send the tweeters a care package with free Red Bull to help get them through the night
- The #MININotNormal campaign, in particular this 'MINI Salutes You' video
- JetBlue delivering a Starbucks coffee to a blogger on the plane
- WestJet creating this magical Christmas surprise for their passengers
The catch is, you have to be careful and keep the 'mix' of social and market norms consistent.
Ariely uses the example of a bank when describing the danger of bringing social norms into a business relationship:
"What happens if a customer's check bounces? If the relationship is based on market norms, the bank charges a fee, and the customer shakes it off. Business is business. While the fee is annoying, it's nonetheless acceptable. In a social relationship, however, a hefty late fee--rather than a friendly call from the manager or an automatic fee waiver--is not only a relationship-killer; it's a stab in the back. Consumers will take personal offense. They'll leave the bank angry and spend hours complaining to their friends about this awful bank."
Richard Fergie also summed this issue up nicely in this G+ post about the recent outrage over Facebook manipulating users' emotions; in this case, the back-stab effect was due to the fact that the implicit agreement between the users and the company about what was being 'sold' and therefore 'valued' in the exchange changed without warning.
The basic rule of thumb is that whether you choose to emphasize market norms or social norms, you can't arbitrarily change the rules.
A side note about social media and brands: Act like a normal person
In a time when the average American aged 18-64 spends 2-3 hours a day on social media, it is only logical that we would start to see brands and the advertising industry follow suit. But if this is your only strategy for building relationships and interacting with your customers socially, it's not good enough. Instead, in this new 'relationship era' of advertising (as I've just pretentiously dubbed it, in true Ries-and-Trout fashion), the brands who will successfully merge market and social norms in their advertising will be the brands which are able to develop the sort of reciprocal relationships that we see with our friends and family. I wrote a post over on the Distilled blog about what social media marketers can learn from weddings. That was just one example, but the TL;DR is: as a brand, you still need to use social media the way that normal people do. Otherwise you risk becoming a Condescending Corporate Brand on Facebook. On Twitter too.
Social norms and authenticity: Why you actually do need to care
Another way in which brands tap into social norms are through their brand values. My colleague Hannah Smith talked about this in her post on The Future of Marketing. Moz themselves are a great example of a brand with strong values: for them it's TAGFEE. Hannah also gives the examples of Innocent Drinks (sustainability), Patagonia (environmentalism) and Nike (whose strapline 'Find Your Greatness' is about their brand values of everyone being able to 'achieve their own defining moment of greatness').
Havas Media have been doing some interesting work around trying to 'measure' brand sentiment with something call the 'Meaningful Brands Index' (MBi), based on how much a brand is perceived as making a meaningful difference in people's lives, both for personal wellbeing and collective wellbeing. Whether or not you like their approach, they have some interesting stats: apparently only 20% of brands worldwide are seen to 'meaningfully positively impact peoples' lives', but the brands that rank high on the MBi also tend to outperform other brands significantly (120%).
Now there may be a 'correlation vs causation' argument here, and I don't have space to explore it. But regardless of whether you like the MBi as a metric or not, countless case studies demonstrate that it's valuable for a brand to have strong brand values.
There are two basic rules of thumb when it comes to choosing brand values:
1) I t has to be relevant to what you do. If a bingo site is running an environmentalism campaign, it might seem a bit weird and it won't resonate well with your audience. You also need to watch out for accidental irony. For example, McDonalds and Coca-Cola came in for some flak when they sponsored the Olympics, due to their reputation as purveyors of unhealthy food/drink products.
Nike's #FindYourGreatness campaign, on the other hand, is a great example of how to tie in your values with your product. Another example is one of our clients at Distilled, SimplyBusiness, a business insurance company whose brand values include being 'the small business champion'. This has informed their content strategy, leading them to develop in-depth resources for small businesses, and it has served them very well.
2) I t can't be so closely connected to what you do that it comes across as self-serving. For example, NatWest's NatYes campaign claims to be about enabling people to become homeowners, but ultimately (in no small part thanks to the scary legal compliance small print about foreclosure) the authenticity of the message is undermined.
The most important thing when it comes to brand values: it's very easy for people to be cynical about brands and whether they 'care'. Havas did a survey that found that only 32% of people feel that brands communicate honestly about commitments and promises. So choose values that you do feel strongly about and follow through even if it means potentially alienating some people. The recent OKCupid vs Mozilla Firefox episode is an illustration of standing up for brand values (regardless of where you stand on this particular example, it got them a lot of positive publicity).
Key takeaways
So what can we take away from these basic principles of social norms and market norms? If you want to build a brand based on social relationships, here's 3 things to remember.
1) Your brand needs to provide something besides just a low price. In order to have a social relationship with your customers, your brand needs a personality, a tone of voice, and you need to do nice things for your customers without the expectation of immediate payback.
2) You need to keep your mix of social and market norms consistent at every stage of the customer lifecycle. Don't pull the rug out from under your loyal fans by hitting them with surprise costs after they checkout or other tricks. And don't give new customers significantly better benefits. What you gain in the short term you will lose in the long term resentment they will feel about having been fooled. Instead, treat them with transparency and fairness and be responsive to customer service issues.
3) You need brand values that make sense for your brand and that you (personally and as a company) really believe in. Don't have values that don't relate to your core business. Don't have values which are obviously self-serving. Don't be accidentally ironic like McDonalds.
---
Have you seen examples of brands building customer relationships based on social norms? Did it work? Do you do this type of relationship-building for your brand?
I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Bridget - wow, thank you for the thoughtful and unique contribution! I often skim blog posts (yes, embarassingly, even the ones published here at Moz), but I was glued to every word here.
Moz is a company where market norms and social norms mix a lot - both internally and externally. It's been tough at times to walk the tightrope with people on the team, customers, or those in our community and understand which one is at play (I actually employee -> employer dynamics around market vs. social norms is one of the most interesting and challenging areas for this stuff). My issue has been that it's possible for empathetic individuals to intuitively sort this stuff out, but much harder to build policies and procedures that scale.
In your example of Jetblue bringing coffee to a blogger or of a bank calling before triggering a bouncing check there's the nagging question for me - is that built into the company's policy (which is empathetic and generous but then somehow becomes less special and authentic), or is it simply an individual employee's decision (and they have that latitude)? At Moz, we're still small enough to where we can be really flexible and have individuals on the team make their own calls to show TAGFEE, but as we scale, my worry is that we lose some of that magic.
This is only one post that make me feel reading a research or thesis by a master of this subject. Each word in your post counts and conveys meaning and insights to me, thank you for sharing it !
Thank you Rand, it means a lot to hear that! :)
I like the idea that a company would be able to include a bit of both - a company policy that reflects the 'empathetic and generous' values you mention, but also which allows that additional room to go above and beyond as an individual employee. But of course that's easier said than done! I don't think that large size and openness to individual initiative are mutually exclusive: even some pretty big brands do seem to be able to allow some latitude to their employees. One of my favorite examples is this Netflix customer service conversation.
Bridget, thanks for the incredible post -- it's a great, detailed overview of the different approaches to advertising and communications yesterday and today. However, I just have to take issue politely with your last point on how brands need to develop relationships with customers. I'd love to see some discussion on this point because it is a bit contentious and controversial.
An example: Pizza Hut. I have a guilty pleasure for Pizza Hut. But I follow them on Facebook only so that I get announcements of specials. I don't want to "have a conversation" with Pizza Hut. Neither do most consumers (Ad Age). Getting announcements of discounts is the top reason by far that most people follow brands (eMarketer). In fact, the contribution of social media to sales is practically zero (Forrester via Ad Contrarian). (Note: I don't know know how the study took attribution into account -- whether top-of-the-funnel awareness counted or only bottom-of-the-funnel sales.)
In one big example, Pepsi lost money and market share when it moved its marketing and advertising from TV and the Super Bowl to 100% social media (Ad Contrarian).
Now, I'm speaking only in the context of B2C sales since this was the context of the original post. I'd argue that social media can be very effective in other contexts. LinkedIn is great for B2B purposes. Twitter can be great for PR, reputation management, and content promotion. Facebook can be great for customer service.
I guess I'm saying that social media is a collection of communications channels that can be used for a variety of purposes. It's just that social media is good for some of these purposes and not others. I'd posit that B2C sales is not one of them. It may be a lot harder than we thought -- if not impossible -- to combine social norms and market norms.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I'd love to hear others' thoughts!
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for the great and thoughtful comments! I suspect we don't actually disagree (or at least not completely, haha). I agree that it would be interesting to get other people's thoughts on this, here's my two cents:
I certainly agree with your point that "I guess I'm saying that social media is a collection of communications channels that can be used for a variety of purposes. It's just that social media is good for some of these purposes and not others. I'd posit that B2C sales is not one of them." Especially that last sentence.
I don't believe that social is a sales tool directly (except, as you point out, in the case of discounts which I think are a different use case - I'll come back to that). I view social media as the place that you a) start the customer relationship (so very top-of-the-funnel) and b) maintain a good engagement after purchase (good customer service, perks for current fans/customers, etc) You're also completely correct to point out that social media is actually several different channels - you can't use Twitter like Pinterest for example.
But when I said "as a brand, you need to use social media like a normal person", that was primarily in the context of this social relationship building. Too many brands view social media as a way to broadcast things about themselves which their customers have no interest in (it's similar to the way they blast out press releases with headlines like "X Brand Profits up by 10% YOY" and wonder why they don't get coverage from journalists). Check out the Condescending Corporate Brand page I linked to in the post for a great example of the type of thing I mean (CCB is a parody page).
I do think that the discounts point is a valid one, and also interesting because it actually proves exactly my point about market norms: discounts are a way of arguing to the customer that "my product is just as good...but cheaper". And this is the problem I have with Pizza Hut - I do like their pizza but their customer service is appalling (at least here in the UK) and their prices are often more expensive than Dominos. So unless I get a discount, or really crave their specific genre of pan pizza, I tend to purchase elsewhere. If Pizza Hut had the brand loyalty that comes with social relationships, maybe I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for the "Pizza Hut experience" because I'd have warm fuzzies about it.
The problem is, at this point very few brands have succeeded in using this social norms model well because it's hard to get right. So I see no contradiction in the statement that 'the majority of people follow brands for discounts" with the overall point of what I'm saying in the blog post, which is simply that the brands who manage to succeed in building a loyal 'fan' community don't actually need to rely on having the cheapest prices because people want to buy from them anyway; and those are the cases in which the fans are getting more from the social media relationship than just a discount.
Definitely interested to hear what other people think though!
I believe it was Rand that recently noted Moz's success in reaching potential customers by going higher up the sales funnel than the vast majority of brands out there. Seems like ongoing engagement for a lot of brands has to start somewhere around there (and possibly stay there for a long time) in order for it to translate to anything of value for the brand.
As a side note, a friend recently shared this slidedeck re "engagement is not a strategy" mainly b/c engagement alone as a metric will bleed smaller brands dry. Interesting read: https://www.slideshare.net/Rialta/social-media-engagement-is-not-a-strategy-36524665
Thanks for sharing that deck Shawn, it's great and spot on! (Although as someone who writes about mobile, I have a tiny pet peeve about people using Apple as a marketing example, as in my opinion they're an edge case).
Engagement is only of value insofar as the things you are using to drive engagement are related to your brand/product. That's why it makes me sad to see businesses sharing pictures of kittens because they read a blog post about how cute things drive more likes and shares. Metrics need to be based on some sort of bottom line, otherwise they don't actually give any insight.
To your point about small businesses: you're right, and as a small business, your marketing strategy has to be about maximizing your resources - which often means your time more than anything else. However, some small businesses do extremely well on social media - a friend of mine had a client who drove a huge amount of business via Facebook flash sales! it's all about making sure you know where you get the most bang for your buck.
Hi Shawn,
Your comment that "engagement will bleed smaller brands dry" is certainly true. How can we hope to offer whitepapers, case studies, blog post, social media updates and still keep the client work going out? It does seem overwhelming at times. We try to be prudent in our choice of media and stay focused. That is the best we can do.
I totally agree with Bridget, she has provided nice touch over the topic of socializing. The most important thing is that a Brand should not have sales and offers in social media. It converts a little peace of people but also loses a big amount. Sales must be different from social profiles.
For Pizza Hut, It also doesn't have cheap prices in India. And brands like Dominos says,"Hey if we get even one minute late for delivery, get your money back." That's kinda impressing the customers.
Even Flipkart delivers goods absolutely free shipping and same cost as other brands sale for. But a very significant thing is that hug we give to a person or May be a greeting as well.
Bridget, thanks for the reply! I do want to respond with some more thoughts, but we're a bit under missile attack from Gaza here in Israel at the moment. :) Will respond as soon as I can. I just hate to leave comment replies hanging... Regardless, I'm sure the knowledgeable Moz community will more than contribute to all of your great points!
I agree that we do not wish to have "conversations with brands" but some people do,or so it seems if you read social media. As a small business owner, it seems that we must expose too much of our personal life for people to care or me to be comfortable with. It seems as if branding has become somewhat of a Star, OK, or People magazine article on your personal life and I am just not up for that. Where to draw the line? I like to keep it professional and leave the folksy, fuzzy warm things out of it. Is that wrong?
What you say, Samuel, is correct, but there are notable exceptions to this rule.
An example is Lego, which is able to engage its fans into conversations and into creating branded content for them.
I think that the big difference, or - better - that element that can make the difference between a brand that is followed just because of scouting offers and another that really is able to create a community is how much the brand is able to create emotional bonds with its audience.
Another example: Nutella. Nutella is able to create great engagement with its fans not just because it is without a doubt one of the best inventions humanity greeted himself with, but also because it plays both with that - many times unconscious - feeling of being again a kid when eating the Nutella with you finger directly from the pot.
I have no study to link to - as instead you do - but this is a characteristic that I see again and again since a long time when looking at how some brands have a huge success on social media.
Wow thanks Bridget Randolph, i will use this tack tick for my client to build their brand name, thanks a lot for sharing your experience
I never heard and read about Social norms and Market norms and how they collide. It's great to have a read on this new, useful and interesting blog post. I think It would help me to improve some kind of social and business marketing strategy currently I'm using in my organization.
Once again, Thanks Bridget Randolph.
:)
Hi Bridget!
Thanks for an interesting post. You have explained the concept of Social and market norms in a very subtle way.
Although I do agree that this age is about CRM, however, if we look at the "Big Picture", we would see that the era that started (as mentioned by you above) never ended. They just needed something more to the same old thing. Its all about saturation of the market with the same old ideas.
As a marketer we know that marketing is the most dynamic field as such, marketing focuses have shifted from product- to- image, image- to - customers and now it is changing again. but nothing is left behind. We still list the product features (Although they have shifted to the last page), we still fight for creating the brand image (Now related more to customer experience) and yes we are on to creating better customer experiences for gaining loyalty. As organizations we just need to sore with the high tide and make sure we do not fall too much at the downfall.
Thanks.
Each word in your post counts and conveys meaning and insights to me, thank you for sharing it !
Bridget - This article seems to be an eye opener when a lots of initiative are being taken to influence customers for promoting brands, some false claims that are never fulfilled, highlighting the strengths to cover up the weaknesses. Though it is not every time big brands are adopting irrelevant strategies to gain customers, some surely are meaningful. Lately i had read an interesting articles on forbes :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveolenski/2014/03/1... that proves authenticity of few brands.
"American Express, for example, has built a number of proprietary social platforms with great success. For example, the company’s OPEN Forum helps its small business cardholders connect and help each other with business issues. Similarly, Nike created NikePlus platform that allows over 5 million customers to interact with friends who use Nike’s digital products and synchronize them with the platform. The results of such endeavors are impressive. Cardholders who used OPEN Forum functionalities are more likely to recommend Amex credit card to others, while the NikePlus platform has been widely credited with contributing to the 30% increase in Nike’s athletic shoe sales."
Obviously it is always effective to get personal with your customers and sometimes do small favors to respect their integrity towards the business.
"She calls the cops and has you arrested for a dine-and-dash." that was amazing, adding humor to the article always helps.. :)
This is a great blog. Honestly, I had been thinking if this is effective with small brands or newly established brands. I have seen many clients trying to establish their brand using social media but have failed. Maybe that's just because of a bad strategy.
Amazing post. Some ideas in this article I use as strategies for customer loyalty. Thank you!
Hi Bridget
Loved your key takeaway about the "brand needs to provide something besides just a low price." Its amazing how many people still think that all customers want is the cheapest price around as I have found with people I interviewed for some client persona's I am developing it is 3rd or 4th on the list.
Your Social norms vs. market norms is very practical and very very useful too. I was not aware about the new guidelines, i got to know about them only after reading your post. I am sure this post is going to help lots of people to understand the some basic and fundamental things which really matters to create Online Branding for a product or service.
Bridget - you have done a great job. Your research is very very effective.
I enjoyed the article, particularly the Ries and Trout reference which evoked mixed memories of my marketing degree, but the definition of "Social Norms" troubled me slightly. However I'm probably been slightly pedantic as someone with a passing interest in sociology. Overall, I love seeing more "Academic" stuff on the Moz Blog though, keep it up!
Very engaging piece! I first saw those cigarette ads and thought someone might be offended. Instead they should go buy Ogilvy on Advertising and learn something.
Great example with the lawyers, and how easy it can be to turn a 'no' into a 'yes' before the thought even occurs to them. The woman being loyal to a company whose cause she liked is another prime example of how these long-tail advertising effects can really extend into weekly or even daily routines.
Hope we see more posts from you :)
A standout point for me is the take away :
3) You need brand values that make sense for your brand and that you (personally and as a company) really believe in.
This stands so true and just because it may sound like a good idea taking into consideration what the company truly believes in reflects the success of the campaign that you are going after. Great examples were those with McDonalds and Coca Cola they had no business going after a market that represented healthy top level athletes, and for that reason caught some negative press from it.
The evolution of advertising was also a great touch, and to see the direction we are going into now. I would say one of the biggest surprises to me is the age demographic that is utilizing social media.
Great Post
Love this post! Another example I would add that I came upon recently is the way that Safeway grocery stores uses Twitter. Their customer service is fantastic there, and it honestly has forced me to rethink about where I shop for food, given how responsive they are.
Hi Bridget,
It's all about Inbound Marketing and it encompasses all these subsets to marketing. Micro conversions are also important in digital one and we need to supplement our offering with some value added to it.
Bridget, It's awesome .....
Nice cover of traditional social media marketing stuffs. The level of communication and interaction is all that maters between the billboards and the internet. Instant communication with customers allows for feedback. You can learn about customers, improve your products and services, and give your brand a personality.
Regards, TFI
[link removed]
I am glad you pointed this out! No one is talking about this. I don't think anyone has actually read the new guidelines. You shared nice information about social norms to build a strong brand that is impossible to find. Your discussed points are really nice and helpful to all. Thanks Bridget Randolph for this nice post.
Great article
LIKE ! thanks.
Interesting reading! Good job
Great