Of Fish, Tweets and Newspapers

It’s already Thanksgiving and you know what I’m thankful for? My daily newspaper. Yeah, that’s right. You heard me. And why? Because unlike social media, traditional mediums like print actually have reach. And for marketers like me that means two things: efficiency and effectiveness.

Blasphemy you say? Well read on, because if you think newspapers are passé, try wrapping fish in the last tweet you posted. Even the great Guy Kawasaki is schooling the social media community on the importance of reach.

Check out a few stats from my local daily, The Arizona Republic:

• Daily circulation is over 1 million – meaning 1 in 3 read the publication every day.
• The Sunday edition alone reaches 1.2 million readers – 38% of the regional population.
• 1,864,200 adults 18+ (56%) in the Phoenix area have read the paper in the past seven days.
• Captures 42% “Family Life” and 34% “Mature Years” Prizm Lifestage Groups – critical psychographic and demographic profiles who – like it or not – still hold the majority of purchase power in the United States.

If you’re a marketing professional who has written off newsprint as a viable media mix, you’re in dangerous territory. In fact, newspaper readership has not dropped as much as the economy has taken a toll on the business of newspapers. And let’s also not forget the younger skew of the agency people making planning and media buying recommendations – it’s not exactly an older person’s business.

Tremendous opportunity exists in social media. Two-way conversations, customer listening campaigns, viral messaging, and consumers above brands are not the traits of traditional mediums. But beyond the heavy-weight tweeters, not everyone is listening as intently as us. Yet.

Quite possibly in the next 48 hours, you may come across an older person snoring in a chair clutching a newspaper. Not exactly a captive audience, but I’m pretty sure they won’t be nodding off from a post-holiday dinner food coma cuddled up to my blog post. Or your last Tweet. Nope. Most likely it will be a newspaper.

Author’s note: The Arizona Republic readership data was provided by a Scarborough study – August, 2008 through July, 2009.

Stranger Dangers: When Brands Are Lurking

I have a four-year-old daughter who is learning about “Stranger Dangers” in her pre-school class. Like every parent, I want my child to be safe, aware and in control. While I’m happy she’s learning a new skill, there is a part of me that wishes she didn’t have to.

She loves socializing and sharing new ideas with those around her and does so openly and honestly. It’s the purest, most creative form of communication – not entirely unlike the relationships many of us are forging online.

At the core of every social media interaction is the desire to obtain and share useful and relevant information on your terms. It’s a simple principle that explains why open platform communication has been wildly successful because it’s open, honest and real.

Earlier this week, I visited Draft FCB’s Web site, where I listened to their latest podcast – “Be Transparent: The Key to Online Tracking.” Draft’s research finds that while 68% of consumers object to being tracked on line, as many as 58% will welcome info relevant to them. These stats really hit home.

That very day I bailed on supporting a local nonprofit in nominating them in the Chase Community online award contest via Facebook. As a condition of completing my nomination, Chase asked me to fork over my personal Facebook information as well as the information of my friends. “Uh, oh,” I thought, “Stranger Danger.”

• If social media is about being honest, don’t we owe it to ourselves to go above and beyond the code of ethics? For a huge financial brand that’s part of an industry in need of a massive PR campaign, it seems only fitting that that those standards are exceeded in practice.
• It’s one thing for me to surrender my own information, but the information of 337 other people on Facebook? Think of it this way – if a telemarketer called, would you give them the phone numbers of all your friends and family members just so the charity of your choice stood a remote chance of receiving a donation? (Really, Chase? Come On! Really?)
• Nonprofits need all the help they can get. The recession has been hard on them and downright brutal on their beneficiaries. Making it difficult for me to help them, makes me like your brand even less.
• Hording the contact information of my friends (and the friends of everyone else on Facebook) in exchange for helping local nonprofits feels…well….greedy. If you’re only going to use my info to track votes and post comments, then why do you need my friends’ information? And my photos?

Here are some key takeaways:

• How you behave online speaks volumes about your brand. Your behavior is far more transparent online than in other places – like Wall Street, for instance.
• Don’t create conflict between what your customers want to do vs. what they are willing to do -- especially when the conflict involves the noble intentions of a customer’s favorite cause.
• Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Yes, Facebook is allowing Chase to do this. And yes, there are terms and conditions associated. But understanding and respecting people’s motives for engaging in social media are more important in the long run.
• If you’re business is genuine about helping others, there are better ways to capture the information you need without getting in the way of your desire to do some good.

The ultimate irony here is that Chase's intentions are to let you choose which charity you want to support – a way of putting you in the driver’s seat. But meanwhile, a brand is lurking.