Kasey Skala
Minneapolis, MN
- 55 comments
- 5 likes given
- 49 likes received
Bio not provided
@arikhanson I'd argue it's very related to their brand. Their target demo are families. Not everyone wants to talk about fashion 24/7. You talk about what your community wants to talk about and I'd argue that they have a solid understand of what their consumers are interested in.
It's the same reason Nike doesn't constantly talk about shoes. Red Bull doesn't constantly talk about drinking an energy drink.
I am going to politely disagree with you. We'll use Old Navy as an example. The National Chocolate Chip Cookie post got 15,000 likes. Based on that, I'd say people enjoy/like that content. I don't want to get as deep as "likes don't equal sales" convo, but these posts generate engagement. For Great Clips, for example, the posts that generate the most activity are often the mundane, simple posts -- who's the greatest guitarist, etc. Not posts that talk about hair.
I think it's fine that Old Navy is doing this -- after all, do we really want to see post after post about shorts and pants? Mix it up a bit.
Tip: Learn to say no.
Determine which meetings are valuable and worth having and filter out the meetings that aren't productive. I routinely decline meeting invites that I feel aren't worth my time.
Completely agree. The true benefit of college isn't what you learn in the classroom, rather what you learn outside the classroom. While I'm proud of the education I received at Drake, what I value most was the life experiences learned. You grow up (hopefully) and find yourself. That's the value.
@BryanReynolds @jeffespo @arikhanson @MikeSchaffer I guess I'm confused what the point of the campaign would be if it isn't sales? Everything comes back to $$$. Otherwise, you're producing fluff metrics
My answer is yes. They really are as good as "us marketers" are thinking.
Take a look at the body of work. The Twitter banter is just one small piece of the bigger picture. The content they are putting out is brilliant. Take a look at their Facebook page -- which, by the way, has 32 million followers. 32 million. The content they put out is resonating with their audience. It's getting shared and people are interacting with it. Yes, in the end, it always comes back to sales. And we have no way of knowing what the ROI is...but I can confidently guess that it's had a positive impact.
Oreo has changed the way marketers need to think -- regardless of whether part of their actions are cheesy or stale. Nabisco is a huge global brand and to have the flexibility and authority to do what they've done is pretty impressive.
You know why a lot of "us marketers" are questioning Oreo? We've gotten a sour taste because other brands are trying to copy Oreo and failing miserably. Ironically, it's "us marketers" who are the culprits of said copying attempts.
Oreo -- I give them an A+ and think the work they are doing is brilliant.
I wrote about why I think Vine is ultimately a niche product two months ago (http://bit.ly/ZcUQOm).
Here's the thing about video -- a lot of it is hype. The "experts" have been spewing "behold the power of video" for the past 24 months. We saw it with Viddly, we saw it with "Instagram for video" apps. But none of it was sustainable. Why? Because there is a huge difference between photos and video.
It's easy for an amateur to capture a decent photo. It's incredibly difficult for an amateur to capture a decent video. On top of that, how many moments in your day/week/month are truly worthy of being captured on video? Very few.
Video has its place -- but it involves time, money and expertise. Apps like Vine and Cinemagram will not go mainstream. Sorry folks.
I don't think it's a creative blunder, but it is definitely a hefty spend that isn't getting good results. It's a cute idea, but the results are pretty poor. Engagement on the Facebook posts are low and the YouTube videos aren't getting many hits. Additionally, the hashtag is way too long -- how many people are going to type that out?
That being said, it's easy to criticize. I applaud SPAM for trying to think outside the box. The idea has legs, but it's being poorly executed. And, brands need to stop trying to replicate Oreo.
All too often brands jump on the social bandwagon and I imagine the conversation at Hormel went something like "hey, we need a social campaign to build awareness." This is poor thinking. Stand alone social campaigns rarely work. Brands need to stop doing one-off social campaigns If they wanted to build awareness around SPAM, there are better options.
The only problem I see in this is that millennials are severely limiting themselves if they label themselves "social." Businesses are looking for well-rounded digital talent; not "social" talent. Outside of a community management, if you are going to succeed and advance up the corporate ladder, you need to broaden your skills. There's a huge difference between understanding social and understanding digital. That being said, I don't think there's a talent gap at all. There is a lot of talent out there that gets digital. These people come from an ad background, marketing background, PR background. Look at someone like Adam Kmiec. Adam technically came from an ad background, but his experience isn't purely advertising -- it's a blend of all digital. That's why Adam will be a CMO (if he chooses that route) within the next 5 years. It's people like this who will lead global businesses.Locally, folks like Tony Saucier & Jillian Froelich are great examples of people who touch social, but they have great background in other disciplines. This is why they're leading departments now and why they'll continue to move up the ladder.
So, I'm more worried about the young folks who are boxing themselves in as "social" folks, rather than people my age.
Coming from the brand side, there are very few conferences I would attend, if I wasn't speaking. BlogWell is one. Two others -- Digiday Brand Summit and iMedia.
@jspepper @davefleet @RobertFrench I would assume there has been some paid activity or at least Burger King or their agency should have a contact at Twitter.
Dave, I disagree with your timeline, in this instance.
As someone who works on the brand side,this would have taken me under 30 minutes to get controlled. An alert should have happened within 10-15 minutes at most. Once you get that alert, you immediately log into Twitter. If you realize your password has been changed, the next call is Twitter. You don't need your legal team right now. You don't need to draft an internal memo. You get on the phone and call Twitter.
This crisis had nothing to do with a physical location or product. It's a Twitter hack. Get the situation taken care of, then bring the crisis team into it.
I concur, sir. Brands want a relationship. As you mentioned, they just define "relationship" differently.
Here's my view -- from a brand perspective:
Every conference I go to, I walk away with value. However, most of the value doesn't come from the actual presentations/speakers. The value comes during the happy hours and dinners, when other brand folks get together. That's where the honest conversation happens. There are occasional learnings during presentations, but you have to remember that presentations are "dumbed" down.
Also, I purposely go out of my way to avoid most vendors and agencies at conferences. That being said, I have met some good vendor partners at conferences, but it's typically the ones who aren't set up in the hallway and tackle me as I walk by.
Again, most of the value that comes with conference happen behind the scenes and not from what's on stage.
Coming from the brand side, I'll say no. An agency or consultant's social footprint means absolutely nothing to me. There's a consultant out there that has over 50,000 followers on Twitter. This consultant also has nearly 60,000 tweets. To me, that say this person spends too much time on Twitter and not enough time producing work.
LinkedIn - I think this has absolutely no bearing on the quality or understanding of one's business.
Facebook - Does anyone really follow agencies or consultants on Facebook? I know I don't.
You know who I'm going to hire/work with? Consultants I've formed a relationship with or ones that trusted colleagues recommend. From an agency perspective, I care more about the people within the agency and the client references.
Client references & body of work > social footprint.
From a brand perspective, all I'd like for Christmas is results :)
Depends on the relationship. I have a great relationship with my agency partners and they gave me wrapping paper, fancy beer and fancy chocolate. It was appropriate because of our relationship and the culture of my brand and their agency.
@ginidietrich "We don't know how this is going to affect us and we're gathering as much information as we can right now in order to bring you the best recommendation. When we have everything we need to make an educated decision, we'll let you know how this will affect your benefits."
But they do know how it's going to affect them. And that's what they are informing people. This type of action happens every day for a number of reasons -- decreased sales, increased cost of goods, etc. The only reason this is different is because of the politics behind it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
First, let's clear up a little bit of confusion here. Papa John's is a franchise-based business. So Papa John's isn't paying anything, it's local business owners, like you, that are paying this expense. An employer in Iowa, for example, has indicated Obamacare is going to cost him an extra $500,000 a year. How many small businesses have an extra $500,000 laying around?
Second, the 2 million free pizzas is not a good comparison. This is likely covered by the franchisee's local/regional ad fund, which most franchise-based businesses have. Each location pays a certain percentage into this fund to cover marketing campaigns. These free pizzas equate to about 660 free pizzas per location. They'll likely get reimbursed by corporate. Regardless, 660 free pizzas is not on the same level as an extra $500,000 in healthcare expenses.
Third, I think it's good that businesses are speaking up. Regardless of your political affiliation (I am conservative and strongly oppose Obamacare), your employees need to know what impact this has on their jobs. Would you rather work for a company that says "we're likely going to lay some people off or drastically reduce hours" or have executives hush-hush and then spring this on them? We complain when executives don't communicate enough and then we complain when they come out and are honest with us.
A few things.
1) I believe Timberlake actually IS in the NBA. I believe he's part of a group that has purchased or is in the process of purchasing the Memphis Grizzlies :)
2) The audience isn't there...yet. The new interface hasn't been launched to the public yet. Give it some time. I think you'll see a lot of people migrate over. There's a lot of angst among consumers and brands with Facebook. I'm scaling back my efforts on Facebook and if I could get rid of it completely (personal and professional) I would. I would kick Facebook to the curb before Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr. In a heartbeat.
3) No one will or should move completely to one platform or abandon a platform. But I am willing to bet that a lot will shift dollars towards other platforms. Besides, there's nothing wrong with small, niche communities.
This topic gets me fired up and I'm glad Facebook is making these changes.
To answer your question, yes, I agree.
Unfortunately, in business there is no level playing field. Never has been; never will be. It's the same reason why Mom & Pop's Hot Dog Stand doesn't advertise during the Super Bowl.
Why should Facebook be any different? It's a free platform. They have the right to make money & I don't see it as a conflict of interest. It's about the economics.
The issue I have is with brands putting so many of their assets on Facebook & other third-party assets. If your business is suffering because of a change Facebook made, that's poor business. Nothing more; nothing less.