I still don't like events, but...

I'm an introvert.

That means I'm quite comfortable here behind my keyboard, thank you very much, but not as comfortable in other places where you might find, say, people. Like the real world. But, at least once a year, I try to leave the comfort of my keyboard and venture to Content Marketing World in Cleveland. That's where I am today.

And, as is typically the case, I have already learned some things and received some value from attending. The funny part? Yeah, the show hasn't started yet.

While the sessions are always well done, given by very smart and well-respected people in their given fields and well attended, the most value I get from #CMWorld, as it's called, is from the time before, after and between sessions.

This is the time you get to meet people you've 'talked' with online for a year or more. But you actually get to look at them, and they at you. You get to see the body language, the head nods, the smiles. And it makes all the difference in the world.

So, while I would typically rather lose a toe (the small one, if you please) rather than willingly sign up to attend a 'trade show', Content Marketing World is different. Is it because I feel more comfortable? Probably. And that's because of the people.

From the Content Marketing Institute folks who host the show (who, btw, are fabulous) to the speakers and moderators and presenters who are genuinely interested in helping people learn, I think this show has a little something different going on.

I can't tell you what that something different is, but it's there, just the same.

For you, it may be a different show in a different town covering a different topic that's near and dear to you. And that's great. I would encourage you -- especially those of you in club introvert, like me -- to find your CMWorld. Find the people you call your people and you will learn from them, and they you.

I've found mine.

Magazines: a time tested example of customizing content for an audience

Image courtesy of hrjmedia.com

Let’s take this act like a publisher thing for another spin, shall we?

Everyone talks about how brands should act like publishers (especially since technology makes most of them publishers now anyway), but what does that actually mean?

Brands are struggling with managing all the different ways they can publish content today. Especially on social media.

Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter, LinkedIn or Instagram, brands often struggle with how these channels — and the content they share on them — should be different. In reality, the perfect example for how to solve this problem was created more than 300 years ago.

It’s magazines.

As far back as the 17^th century, magazine publishers were developing different publications to suit their different audiences. Ladies Home Journal served a very different audience than the American Law Journal or National Geographic.

Of course, times have changed and digital technology has caused some magazines to fall on hard times or disappear completely. Sadly, Ladies Home Journal was shuttered in 2014 after a 131 year run.

But the example of customizing messages for a specific audience has never gone out of style.

It’s very much the same with social media platforms today. The folks who choose to engage with you on LinkedIn are likely very different people from those following you on Instagram, who are also different from those engaging with you on Facebook.

Yet brands don’t seem to get it.

By picking up a story (video, infographic, etc.) they create for one channel and plopping it down on another, brands continue to show their audiences that they just don’t see them as different or special. As the consumer might be muttering to herself as she sees the same generic messages pushed out across different channels, “They just don’t get me.”

“But,” the brands argue, “we can’t keep up! How can we create messages for the dozens of social media channels our customers are on today…we just don’t have the resources?”

I think I see the problem.

Let’s go back to the publisher model. If Meredith Corporation, publisher of Ladies Home Journal, didn’t have the revenue or subscription level to support a given title, they would have to shut it down, as they did in 2014. Actually, this happened a lot during the economic downturn of 2008-2009 as digital technology and ad revenues passed quietly in the night.

The good news for brands is that no one has to lose their job if a brand chooses to not participate in every single social channel available. The social team can simply dedicate more time (perhaps the time that’s been necessary all along) to create content that helps the audience feel a special connection with the brand.

And that’s exactly what needs to happen.

So, while the ‘act like a publisher’ mantra has many lessons for brands who are the publishers of today — including thinking about their audience rather than their product — it also provides a valuable lesson about focus.

We all know intrinsically that trying to be all things to all people is a recipe for disaster in marketing.

Can we please take that lesson to heart when it comes to social media, as well?

The Content Marketing Review (TCMR): Share a Coke

Brand

Coca Cola

Creator

Ogilvy Australia (agency)

Title

Share a Coke

CM Score (out of 100): 90 (quite successful)

Scale: 0-50 (unsuccessful); 51-70 (moderately successful); 71-90 (quite successful); 91-100 (superior).

Description

If you can believe it, back in 2011 the world’s most iconic soda brand was having an awareness problem in Australia. According to the company, fully 50% of teens and young adults hadn’t even tasted a Coke in the month before this effort launched.

In what was truly a bold move at the time, they decided to remove their most valuable asset — the ‘Coke’ name — from the flagship product and replace it with 150 of the most popular names of people in Australia.

They also created kiosks where people could add their own name, just in case Coke had missed someone, and Aussies waited in line for hours just for the privilege. I would imagine they also bought that can of Coke, don’t you think?

Why it works

This idea, which has since been duplicated around the world by other branches of the Coca-Cola family tree (you know what they say about imitation), was big and bold, but it was also simple.

It broke through and connected individually with people and made them feel special by leveraging the power of the Coca-Cola brand. It’s a classic example of showing rather than telling…and Coke was telling Australians: “We want to get to know you personally.”

In just three months, young adult consumption of Coke was up seven percent. It was working.

Why it works as content marketing

This was a big idea that had to be executed on a grand scale in order to be successful. But where there’s risk, there’s reward; and this was clearly more than just advertising. It was an idea that leveraged the power of the brand to make people feel good…something more brands should strive for.

It’s the kind of big thinking that can only be executed with content marketing. Running ads showing cans of Coke with people’s names on them wouldn’t have worked…it would have come off as egotistical. This clearly did not.

What can we learn?

There are many things we can learn here. One of the biggest is that localization is invaluable in strategy and concept development. While the idea has been imported across the globe since, it was designed to solve a specific problem the brand was having in Australia by allowing people to become the hero of the story…that’s why it worked.

Coke also did a nice job of extending the effort seemingly everywhere, creating interactive applications with electronic billboards, digital apps and websites that replicated the excitement online. They also kept the public involved by inviting them to vote for an additional 50 names that would be added, helping to keep the momentum going.

Perhaps the best part of this idea is that it can inspire smaller brands, who may not have millions to spend, to think big even if they can’t spend big.

What’s your brand’s most valuable asset? How can you share it with people to make them feel special? How can you make your audience the hero of the story?

Think big and, like Coke, you will be rewarded.

Beware marketing pollution

Photo credit: Galleryhip.com

Beyond simply not being a wise choice for your brand, I would argue that a lack of focus in your marketing messages (or content) is actually irresponsible.

As marketers we have a responsibility, not only to our brands but to the public, and we’ve been shirking this responsibility for decades.

This isn’t a rant about being deceitful or dishonest, although that certainly happens. This is a rant about simply putting stuff out there — any old stuff — in hopes that it will garner some attention. It doesn’t.

This is quite simply marketing pollution. And it needs to stop.

Now, I certainly understand that this isn’t as big and important an issue as global warming or world hunger…we should keep working on those as best we can. But, as marketers, we have a professional responsibility to stop polluting the airwaves, the Internet, the email boxes of the public, with messages we know aren’t any different from what’s already there.

And I don’t buy the argument that everything has been said or done before and that nothing is new. Tell that to Norman Rockwell. Tell that to Steven Spielberg. Tell it to Dr. Seuss.

If you’re legitimately trying to create new messages, perhaps even something that’s already been done but in a different way, I thank you. But if you’re a marketer who just shrugs his/her shoulders, winces and pushes the publish button when you know what you’ve just created is in no way unique, you’re part of the problem.

Suck it up, marketers. Because if we don’t fix this problem, someone else will.

We can already see the writing on the wall…machine learning, so-called formulas designed to create the best headline. People are waiting in line to create tools designed to replace us. And, if we keep pumping out the same old drivel, we’ll be helping them.

Of course, there is a silver lining here or at least a way out. But we have to be united.

We have to agree to hold each other accountable, because we’ve all done it. We’re all guilty of creating something we know is already out there just to meet a deadline or give a squeaky wheel what it wants. We simply can’t do that anymore.

If we do start holding each other accountable, constructively helping each other avoid what Doug Kessler called Crap, we can once again regain our rightful place doing more than just helping people, but inspiring them. Because that’s our calling.

We are marketers and we should be proud of that. But lately, that label is more a cone of shame. We look down when we say we work in marketing. No one can change that but us.

What can you do? Two things: call BS (constructively) when you see marketers or brands throwing the same old stuff out there; and take a look at your own work. Are you part of the problem? Are you working hard with every message to make it somehow unique and inspiring?

We can do this, marketers. We can.

Actually, we must.

The Content Marketing Review (TCMR): Our food, your questions

Brand

McDonald’s of Canada

Creator

Tribal DDB (agency)

Title

Our food, your questions

CM Score (out of 100): 90 (quite successful)

Scale: 0-50 (unsuccessful); 51-70 (moderately successful); 71-90 (quite successful); 91-100 (superior).

Description

The world’s largest fast food restaurant chain was taking some flak for its food and not all of the rumors were true. What’s a brand to do?

Enter content marketing.

To combat this situation, McDonald’s Canada created a website giving people the chance to ask any question they want about McDonald’s food (cleverly, this also gives the company the ability to answer these questions in public, where they can be shared).

Why it works

It’s upfront, honest and allows the fast food giant the ability to put some nasty rumors about its food to rest while showing more of its human side.

Why it works as content marketing

This would not have worked as an ad campaign or a press release. That would have come off as defensive and one-sided (mainly because it would have been). By allowing, even encouraging, people to ask the questions they want, Mickey Ds gets the opportunity to dispel some of those almost-out-of-control rumors, like the one about ‘pink slime’ in its chicken nuggets or that they don’t use real eggs in its Egg McMuffins. 

Turns out, both are not true.

And they’re smart about how they answer, too. Some easier questions can be handled directly on the website (Q: “Is your ice cream real dairy?” A: “Not only is our soft serve made with real dairy – it’s made with fresh, delicious, Canadian milk and cream.”).

But, for the more involved answers, they’re willing to invest in engaging videos that answer the question and also showed that human side of the brand. Hey, those are real people making those fries…and almost everyone knows someone who has worked there. Heck, it couldn’t be THAT bad a place, right?

Exactly.

What can we learn?

There are a couple of key things. First, the brand (at least the Canadian branch of the brand) is showing that it listens to its customers and demonstrates, in answer after answer, how it supports Canadian farmers and local businesses. Smart.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for their American cousins. When they grabbed onto this idea, they enlisted a B-list celeb from the cable series Mythbusters (couldn’t afford either of the show’s stars, guys?) and some of the authenticity was immediately lost. The American version had a pre-programmed feel to it, which took away some of what was working. Okay, a lot of what was working. These were no longer real people, but actors talking to people. I think the trust factor just went out the drive through window!

But back to Canada.

The other reason this worked so well (and continues to work) in the great white north is the company’s commitment to answering a significant number of questions. To date, the company has answered more than 20,000 questions — and they won’t avoid the difficult questions, either.

For example, they tackle one of the toughest questions (“Is ‘100% Canadian beef’ just a company that McDonald’s buys from?”) by visiting the Canadian company where they do buy their beef, Cargill, and allowing a proud Cargill employee to take the viewers on a video tour.

It’s this commitment to consistently doing what you say you’re going to do that wins people over. And it’s also a hallmark of content marketing.

Skeptics beware, McDonalds of Canada means what they say… and, all of a sudden, we don’t feel so badly about stopping by for some of those world famous fries.

The Content Marketing Review (TCMR): The story of Sarah and Juan

Brand

Extra gum

Creator

Energy BBDO (agency)

Title

The story of Sarah and Juan

TCMR Score (out of 100): 95 (superior)

Scale: 0-50 (unsuccessful); 51-70 (moderately successful); 71-90 (quite successful); 91-100 (superior).

Description

A video that tells the story of a young couple’s life together and how a man uses gum wrappers, of all things, to propose to his girlfriend in a well thought out, romantic way.

Why it works

It’s a great, emotional story told in a compelling way.

Why it works as content marketing

While well crafted, it does take quite a bit more than 30 seconds to tell this story, so it wouldn’t work well (or be cost-effective) in the typical TV spot format. Also, it’s important to note that the message says nothing about the product at all, choosing to integrate it as part of the story; striking a beautiful balance that’s more than simple product placement, but much less than an endorsement.

What can we learn?

I would love to say we can point to a sales increase (or lack thereof) as a result of this content marketing tactic. But, while I looked, it turns out that Mars Corp. (owners of Wrigley and the Extra brand) is very private about financial matters.

What we can learn is that people love a romantic story and will give a brand credit for creating one. They will also share a great story prolifically with their personal networks (as of December 2015 – not yet three months old – the video on YouTube had been viewed nearly 17 million times and shared 59,000 times). But why?

Like its predecessor video, called Origami, Sarah and Juan pulls the viewer in with an intriguing story, while keeping the product mentions infrequent enough to avoid it feeling like an ad.

Because — are you ready for this – it’s not an ad.

Ads, in the purest sense, promote products or services. They talk about features and benefits and they tell people where they can go to buy the product or service. This video does none of that.

I’m sure there are those who will disagree with me on this point, perhaps even some of the people working to promote the brand itself. To me, an ad is more than just getting attention. It’s that, for sure. But then it moves (or tries to move) the audience toward a purchase. This video never attempts that…and, perhaps above all else, that’s what makes it more content marketing than advertising.

The seamless connection to the brand itself, given to the audience as a head-nodding moment that’s woven indelibly into the story, can easily be simultaneously appreciated and forgiven by the viewer all at the same time.

Here’s the bottom line: the Extra team understands their station in life. They are promoting a brand of chewing gum, not something complex like a car or a life insurance policy.

Theirs is an impulse purchase and the hope here is simply that, the next time the viewer is in a store or at the gas station near a chewing gum display, perhaps they will give Extra a try. That’s it.

And that is the very essence of content marketing.

Well played, Extra. Well played.

Content is beginning to bifurcate

Photo credit: thenationalherald.com

Being a writer, I try not to use big, potentially confusing terms as best I can. But, sometimes, they just fit.

That’s the case with our old friend bifurcation. As you may know, the term itself means to divide into two branches or forks, and I believe that’s exactly what’s happening to the content being created by marketers these days.

Some content (AKA the messages created by brands) is getting very good. These brands, like Oreo and Lego, are investing in the creation of quality content and it shows. On the other hand, there are brands who are not investing in the quality piece, rather focusing on the quantity of the content they are creating. This also shows.

My guess is that marketers on team quantity believe if they create enough content, it will bring people to their door (website, etc.).

Whether that’s true or not is a subject for another day. My point here is that content, specifically what I’ll call marketing content (to distinguish from more transactional content) is beginning to break into two camps, two kinds, two areas…oh, it’s bifurcating…alright?

I believe this content bifurcation will continue in 2016 and will further separate the brands who do this content creation thing well from those who do not, creating a haves-vs-haves-not situation.

My urging to you, dear brand marketers, is to get on board with the quality team.

Gone are the days when, if you got enough ‘stuff’ out there, you could get the attention of the search engines and win. The Googles and the Bings of the world and others are far too smart for old school things like key word stuffing…and that should tell us something. It should tell us more than, “Well, I guess we’ll have to try some other trick now.”

There are no more tricks. Your messages have to be relevant, helpful and meaningful for your audience or they will be ignored. That’s it. End of story.

No matter what business you are in or how you sell — B2B, B2C, B2B2C — there are no consumers begging you to send them more messages. And don’t even get me started on those who haven’t decided on a target audience on which to focus (how on earth can you be relevant, helpful and meaningful to someone if you don’t know who that someone is? Ugh.).

Anyway, as 2016 develops, I believe this bifurcation of content will continue and become even more pronounced. Now is the time, brand marketers, to decide which team you’re on…team quality or team quantity.

I’m sure there are those who are thinking, “What about both?” And it is true, to an extent, that brands need to create good quality content and create an ample amount of it, as well. But at some point, one has to take precedence.

There will come a day/project/meeting where you’ll be asked, “Do we want to make several of these or do we want to make one of them really well?”

As content continues to bifurcate, you will have to choose.

Please, I implore you, choose quality.