The Squared Root

Benefits of Social Media Networks

clearspace@fg2.com — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:38:09 GMT

With as much time as I spend working with social media enthusiasts, it's natural to be somewhat contemplative about the effectiveness of social media networking. Looking back over the past year, I can definitely see where social media networking has been extremely effective for me.

By adding new tools to my pre-existing networking and communications skills, I have exponentially increased my reach and effectiveness in ways that were greatly limited before, geographically and otherwise.

The turning point for me was a decision I made to be more strategic about the use of my time online and to utilize the tools that worked best for me and that I liked the most. After all, if you don't enjoy doing something, you're likely not going to be as good at it. This seems to be especially true for social media tools given the many available channels.

Recently I read a blog post titled Thriving on Social Media Network Effects by Chris Garrett. In it he lists the benefits of social networking for him in a clear manner and how he has increased his own effectiveness by sticking to a regimen with his own personal schedule.

Like Garrett, I decided I didn't need to compete with the most active of the social media enthusiasts. Using Twitter as a primary networking tool and online business card, I've been able to organically grow my personal network, help out a little with some social causes* that I feel strongly about, and increase my business network in very positive ways.

During 2008 I moved from cautious participant to enthusiast. I would encourage anyone else who is skeptical to give careful consideration before making a decision not to try using social media tools in their professional lives.

As Chris notes in his post, "You don't have to live in social media like Chris Brogan or Robert Scoble to benefit from it "

I'm a huge admirer of Brogan and Scoble. It has been a relief to know that I don't have to be as "enthusiastic" as them to find my own comfort zone and success.

~ Mike

*Mobile Loaves and Fishes

Capital Area Food Bank of Texas

Great Content is Key

clearspace@fg2.com — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:32:54 GMT

We spend a lot of time in social media talking about the tools involved. Just this week I was reminded again that great content is really the key.

My friend Eileen Smith has been the online editor of TexasMonthly.com for more than a year now. Evan Smith, her boss and no relation to her, had previously brought her in to direct their efforts in social media. Since then, Eileen's coverage of state and national politics and culture have brought an edge, new insights and a whole lot of new interest to the magazine's online offerings.

Years before, Eileen had created her own blog and had generated a large following by creating great content - she's a fantastic writer - and having an "anything goes" attitude about comments. The blog literally has been a gathering place for lobbyists, members of the legislature and their staffers, journalists, and anyone else with an interest, something to say and maybe some time to kill.

Eileen is a trained journalist with solid political credentials but decided to enter into the blogosphere at a point when it was still very unproven. She chose the name "In The Pink" in reference to the pink granite of which the Texas State Capitol building is constructed.

Discussions can get very heated when commenters, often using psuedonyms, discuss politics or other cultural hot buttons. Yet, somehow, the community that makes up the readership always handles its own squabbles and Eileen just keeps cranking out hilarious, insightful, current, and very well written content.

Yesterday, as I often do, I typed "inthepink" into my search bar and discovered that Eileen's blog is now a part of the Texas Monthly family of blogs. I'd heard the rumors, but didn't know for sure if or when it would happen.

Her first post is hilariously titled,"We Are the Blog We've Been Waiting For."

In typical Eileen Smith fashion she explains, "(e)verything that you’ve grown to love or come to hate about In the Pink will remain the same. Sure, I suppose that this hand-over could prove to be a “legal risk” to Texas Monthly while providing constant ethical challenges to its well-respected brand, but isn’t that why they have a lawyer on retainer?"

This is great, in my opinion, and it's made possible by the fact that Eileen and a group of guest writers have always provided great content even while being very edgy. It wasn't enough to simply add a blog that takes risks, it had to be one that is very well done when taking those risks.

This kind of strategy might not work for everyone, but in the case of Texas Monthly my betting is that it will pay off very well. I know I'll be reading.

The Concept of Singularity

Barry.Rumac@fg2.com — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:52:32 GMT

One of FG SQUARED's principles of business is The Concept of Singularity, and if you work with (or near) us and you've heard the term, you might wonder what exactly it is, why it's important, and/or its place inside of a brand image.

Since The Concept of Singularity is a branding concept, to divine the meaning of this concept, it helps to begin with "branding."

Branding is a term that is always in the forefront of thinking in many companies, especially among the marketing department, who are the stewards of the corporate brand and responsible for its creation, enhancement and protection.

Many definitions of "brand" exist but I prefer to describe "brand" as the sum of all perceptions that stakeholders have about a company and its products or services.

The Concept of Singularity, while part of the brand image, differs in one aspect:

- Of all the things a company may be known for, The Concept of Singularity is generally the single most important reason for which the customer purchases the product or service.

- Furthermore, a well-established Concept of Singularity serves as the best defense a brand has against competitive inroads.

How does this work?

Think for a moment about a recent major purchase you may have made or are considering, and also about what your key criteria was in that purchase decision.

To illustrate: If you are considering the purchase of a new car, and if safety is your primary concern, then you most likely have narrowed your list of possibilities to those vehicles that have reinforced that attribute.

Volvo is one brand very likely to have come to mind. If you are considering the purchase of a new set of tires for your car, and safety is your primary concern, then you might have put Michelin on your list.

Why? Because in recent years both of these brands have successfully stressed safety as a main product attribute. In fact, safety has become for both of these brands their Concept of Singularity.

This is not to suggest that this attribute is the sum total of their respective brands, rather that among all of their positive attributes, safety has risen to the top and in fact, formed a competitive barrier to any other brand that wants to claim safety as a reason to buy. Put another way, they own the safety space. This makes it difficult for a competing brand to come in on that platform.

So the question now becomes: how does a brand, your brand, develop its own Concept of Singularity?

While not difficult, it does require two key ingredients of your marketing: being consistent and being persistent.

Be consistent in the relevant platform that you are exposing to your customers, and be persistent in using that platform in one form or another in almost all of your communications internal and external. It is only over time that your brand develops that wonderful attribute that will help drive sales and keep competitors at bay.

The Logo is not the Brand

Jeff.Culbertson@fg2.com — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:26:27 GMT

While FG SQUARED is certainly capable of creating a visually exciting and appropriate logo, we believe that a good brand does not start or end there. There are many elements of the brand, of which the logo is just one visual representation of. Think of the brand as the personality of your company, and how you want the marketplace to perceive you when they make buying decisions.

If I am shopping for a new car, and safety is my biggest concern, VOLVO is the first company that comes to mind. Luxury: Lexus. Urban/Cool: Scion. Cute/Youthful: Volkswagen. Tough: (used to be) Ford. Classy: Cadillac. Etc.

My impression about these companies came from somewhere. Where? Advertising (and lots of it). Past experience. Word of mouth. Each of those companies has carved themselves a niche in the automobile ecosystem and protects it aggressively.

Those personalities, those niches, ARE the brand of those companies. The logo is nothing more than an extension of that brand.

BUILDING THE BRAND

To set itself apart from the competition, a company may choose to create a new niche in the ecosystem and “move in” so to speak. That company collectively now has to live, breathe, speak and wear that niche. That’s what the brand is: the set of guidelines the company follows to protect that niche.

Once a company has identified a new niche, it is a good idea to validate the viability of that niche in the marketplace. Is this something that customers want? What is the likelihood they would change from a loyal brand to get the benefits this new company offers? If this is re-branding, are customers willing to move with you? Is this truly a differentiator in the minds of customers? Is it enough of a differentiator? Is what the company is promising in its mission important to customers? Do they even care?

If a company is going to re-brand itself as the “higher-priced, higher-quality” company, and 80% of their potential customer base is more interested in “low-cost regardless of quality”, is the remaining 20% of the customer base enough to make this niche viable? How much market share of that 20% would you need to have to be profitable?

This is why we feel it’s important to ask the market for their opinions on the new position of the company. If you hired us to paint your portrait for you to hang on your wall, we will find out what you like, what your preferences are, give you our recommendations, and start painting a portrait that we know you’ll be happy with. But if you want to sell millions of those portraits to your customers, we would find out what you want in your portrait and go see if it matches up with what the customers want before we start painting, so we’ll know that they will be happy with it as well. It basically comes down to ‘who does this need to appeal to?’ or ‘who is this for?’

That market research is very valuable, and can save a company a lot of money in the long run. It raises the likelihood of launching a successful brand that will be strong and appeal to customers.

That said, you can absolutely achieve a successful brand launch without doing research. It’s not essential but it is very useful and can illuminate problems in the strategy that the company may have missed. In 2000, before the Dot Bomb, a group of investors came to us with a bunch of money and an idea for a website and a name for the company. We were concerned because they did not know their target market and their name was (to be frank) terrible. We convinced them to spend a not insubstantial amount of money on market research before we started building this company’s brand. The research showed that the market despised the name, and didn’t have much use for the website regardless of what it was called. This saved the investors from wasting a lot of money on an idea that wasn’t viable.

WHAT DO CUSTOMERS WANT ... TODAY?

Without insightful research into the mind of the end customer, there is always a small element of risk involved. It’s not throwing darts with a blindfold on; you can make a lot of assumptions—some obvious, some not—that makes branding success more likely. And even with research, there’s never a sure thing. Market tastes evolve and change constantly.

Fortunately, a company can stay ahead of, and even influence, these changes by implementing Web 2.0 practices. It’s doing the market research I’m talking about on your own simply by putting some straightforward technologies in place that allow an open and constant line of communication between the company and customers. If companies start doing this, they’ll have better knowledge of their customers and can react to what their customers need more quickly.

If this were the case, I can imagine that market research wouldn’t reveal much that was a surprise, and would probably not be necessary. Of course, re-branding would probably also not be necessary. Knowing what customers want, when what they want can be ever changing, by necessity means evolving the brand incrementally over time. This is a natural progression; it might not be intentional, and it might even be out of a company’s control! Customers change how they consider a company depending on how the company—or a company’s competition—treats them. In large numbers this can have a transformative influence on the brand—positive or negative.

One of the best attributes a company can have in today’s climate is “they are open and responsive to my needs.” Branding can promise that but the company has to deliver and stay on that message. The logo can’t do it for you.