Advertising Age - March 5, 2012

VIEWPOINT
READER RESPONSE

Edited by Ken Wheaton, kwheaton@adage.com

HOW SOCIAL IS
SOCIAL MEDIA?

Re:“TheBrutalTruthAboutSocialMedia:It’sOK toBeaLittleAntisocial”AA,Feb.27

JOSH BERNOFF, ARLINGTON, MASS.

If you listen a little closer to what we and many others have been saying about social technologies, you’ll get a better idea of what all the fuss is about.

A small number of people interact with brands.

A large number of people pay attention to those interactions.

In the simplest case, just because only a few people write reviews on homedepot.com or tripadvisor.com doesn’t mean they’re not important. Millions read them. That’s why the companies care so much.

The same applies to what people are saying about the brand on Facebook or Twitter or YouTube. Few comment; many read.

So it is about the conversation—and all the people listening to it. Based on analysis from Forrester Research, those listeners account for more than 500 billion brand impressions a year in a social environment. You could ignore that, but it would be a mistake.

Keeping living in the 20th century if you want. We’ll see you when you get here.

RICHARD STACY, STOWMARKET, U.K.

Josh, I would put it this way:
A small number of people seek out a
relationship with brands.

A larger number of people watch or benefit from those interactions/relationships.

A very large number of people may want to interact with brands at very specific times (usually when they have a complaint or suggestion).

The trick is to understand which group you are dealing with—because you can’t treat them the same.

MIKE SPROUSE, CHICAGO, ILL.

I wrote a post on my blog awhile back asking whether we’re in the anti-social or social era. And Josh, I agree that brands pay attention and care what a small number of people say in the interest of affecting the larger population (especially if the commentary people are “listening to” is bad).

Two points, though. Listening is passive. If 99%

PARACADUTE

DON’TSPEAK
NOW:

Socially savvy and highly shared rock group OK Go.

of social media is about people being passive, how is that “social”? So perhaps social media is a misnomer to begin with (and I think it is).

[That] leads me to the meatier point. Brands might get your data points and might understand them, but I can tell you that they want “likes.” I’ve been on both sides—brand and agency—and all brands care about is this dream of having more people interact with them. … That’s the bill of goods we’ve all been sold in this social-media era: that more likes and followers are better, because more people are interacting with your company.

Snarky comments aside, I don’t think the author is stuck in another era, I think this is a viable topic.

ON MOBILE, IT’S NOT
ABOUT THE ADS

Re:“What’sHoldingBackMobile-AdSpending?” AA,Feb.27

JEFFREY DACHIS, DACHIS GROUP, AUSTIN, TEXAS

What’s holding back mobile-ad spending is the almost caveman-like belief that display advertising is going to be relevant on a mobile device the way that it is in a magazine. The truth is that meaningful, measurable brand engagement [into which] companies would put meaningful dollars will not come from display advertising on phones but through more engaging experiences like the app ecosystem or social experiences.

Let’s stop trying to pretend that the mobile-ad space is a great delivery vehicle for display advertising, and we will see mobile as a brand/commerce marketing opportunity take off at scale.

REALLY, TACO BELL?

Re:“WatchTacoBell’sFirstSpotWith‘LiveMas’ Tagline” AdAge.com,Feb. 24

MARK POPROCKI, COVA, COLUMBUS, OHIO

I don’t know what másmeans, and I don’t care enough about Taco Bell to Google it. I’m guessing it means something cool, hip and exciting.

When I did care enough about Taco Bell to
eat its cheap food, I never felt cool, hip and
exciting to do so. I had a dollar, and I was hungry
for something other than another burger. Guess
I was thinking outside the bun or something. …
Do you have something to say? Send letters and corrections to
viewpoint@adage.com or to Advertising Age, Viewpoint, 711 Third Ave., New York,
NY 10017. Please limit letters to 250 words.

AL RIES RIES & RIES
When it comes to
names, corporations
just aren’t people

Ron Johnson was shocked at what he found when he became CEO of JC Penney & Co. The chain ran 590 separate sales last year, and nearly three-quarters of its merchandise sold at discounts of 50% or more.

You have to admire what he did next: Out with nonstop promotions, and in with everyday low prices.

That goes against conventional wisdom. Almost every mainstream department store operatesona continual-salebasis, essentially training the consumer not to buy anything until it’s on sale.

I was then surprised by what Mr. Johnson did with the chain’s logotype: a red-bordered white square, with “JCP” in a blue square in the upper left-hand quadrant.

JCP? How many consumers call Penney’s JCP? No one I know refers to it that way.

A recent Associated Press
story about Mr. Johnson
referred to JC Penney three
ways: J.C. Penney (three
times), Penney’s (three times)
and Penney (nine times). JCP,
zero. If consumers “own” the
brand, then they also own its
nickname. And they probably
prefer “Penney” or “Penney’s”
to “JCP.”
Then why would the
company even consider using
the initials as its logotype?

Having worked with a number of big companies, I’ve noticed that employees often call them by pet names. I wouldn’t be surprised if many JC Penney staffers routinely use “JCP” in emails, reports and other internal documents. JCP, three letters, is easier to write than J.C. Penney. I’m sure that, after years of typing “JCP,” many executives think of it as the name of the company they work for.

Consumers are different. What companies write about, consumers talk about. Spoken length is what matters. Consumers almost never use a nickname unless it’s shorter than the full name of the product or service.

“Let’s get some stuff at Penney’s.” Penney’s is shorter to say. And consumers will never use “JCP,” three syllables, instead of “Penney’s,” two syllables.

Years ago, Western Union was one of our accounts. Early in the relationship, I was mildly surprised to see internal memos about “WUCo”: Western Union Corp.

Western Union, whose reputation
suffered because of the connection with
telegrams, was a candidate for a name
change. (As Time magazine once
reported: “It was on time and had no
typographic errors, so we knew it was a
fake telegram.”) We recommended
“Westar Corp.”
We spent a lot of time and money on
presentations and prototype ads but got
nowhere with management. We finally
threw in the towel.