Ahead of the Facebook IPO, there has been a lot of discussion on the value of Facebook. Grounded in that discussion, there has also been a lot of chatter about Facebook’s revenue stream, generated through advertising. With that discussion, many marketers have weighted in.

In truth, this debate has been going on for a while, and not much has changed. Marketers recognize the communities that are forming around Facebook. Marketers recognize social media as a way to reach their targets. At the same time, marketers have no clue how much of their advertising dollars they should dedicate to this channel. Return on investment has long been a fuzzy topic when one put the words social media and advertising together in one sentence.

Michael Lazerow, CEO of Buddy Media, a company that helps global advertisers to build interactive social platforms on Facebook, contributed to a Fast Company article last week. His article was in part a response to a recent Wall Street Journal article that raised doubts that Facebook can continue to successfully attract advertisers if the ROI question remains unanswered. In his response to the ROI question on many marketers’ mind, he wanted marketers to remember three “truths”:

1) We’re in the first inning

2) Initial success is overwhelming positive

3) Success is driven by advertisers and not Facebook

These are three very interesting truths. While I agree with some and disagree with others, there are definitely lessons to be learned about Facebook.

Lazerow raised a good point that we are in the first inning. Social media is here to stay for the foreseeable future. And the best way to learn is to do. You are not going to learn what works for your brand and what doesn’t by staying on the sideline. If you do something, it may not work. If you do nothing, it’s guaranteed that it’s not going to work. If you do something, and it doesn’t work quite the way you thought it would, consider it lesson learned.

As for how great the initial success has been, I consider that to be debatable. Are there cases where Facebook helped a brand? Undeniably so. However, I could say that about sexy models. Does it work for some brands? Undeniably so. Does it work in all cases? No.

I have to agree, in principal, Lazerow’s last point about success is driven by advertisers. But I have to disagree in the specifics. The success or failure of any marketing campaign rests with the marketer. The buck stops with us. Facebook (and I can substitute here other popular tricks like Groupon, or Twitter, or Pinterest, or even the tried and true TV, print, price promotion, etc.) is not the magic that would turn an otherwise unremarkable product into a household name. Facebook is not the magic that would turn an otherwise undifferentiated positioning into a memorable brand. Facebook is not the magic that would turn an otherwise forgettable campaign into a brand-building activity. Facebook is ultimately one of many tools available in a marketer’s tool kit. It’s up to the marketer to figure out which tool to use, which tool to not use, and how to use each tool effectively.

—- Get this Facebook debate going.  Here are some 140 character bits: —-

Is Facebook worth it?  Here are a few thoughts.  http://bit.ly/IXiU0x

Should you believe in Facebook?  It depends.  http://bit.ly/IXiU0x

Photo credit: Birgerking

Does the marketing basics apply to book marketing?  Are there any tricks that are specific to book marketing?

Books are incredibly hard to market. Think of your favorite song for example. It took, what, maybe five minutes to consume it? It’s much easier to say, "Hey, watch this music video" than it is to say, "Hey, read this book." So the passalong for a music video is much, much faster. You can blow up on Youtube with the snap of a finger if your a musician.

Movies are harder, but still, they are two hours or so. You can’t blow up with a movie, it takes tons and tons of commercials and press to promote. You have an entire team of actors hitting every late night show possible to promote a movie. But still, the passalong factor is greater, for the simple fact that movies are only two hours to consume.

Books are around 8 hours to consume. In a normal adult’s life, this means a week or a month to finish a book. Then, and only if they love it, they share it with their friends. And their friends groan and say they’ll get to it, and a year later maybe they do or they don’t. Word-of-mouth is crazy hard for books. Most authors can’t get a book going until they have six other ones in their backlist. So the trick to book marketing is to stick with it for at least five years, and keep writing. It’s not for the faint-hearted. And you are probably not the one who’s going to explode overnight.

If you had written your book 10 years ago before the internet matured, how would you have marketed the book?  How would you reached your target?  Would it have been possible?

I would have had to go the traditional publishing route, so I have no idea. Probably radio shows and touring the country to do book signings.

How do you fit in being a digital media strategist and being a novelist in just 24 hours a day?  Can everyone do it?

I work almost every day for at least 10-12 hours.  I don’t think the question is whether everyone can, but whether everyone would want to. I sometimes hope for a simpler life.

Finally, what’s your favorite novel and what’s your favorite marketing book?  Why?

My favorite novel from the last year is the Clockwork Prince from Cassandra Clare. It’s romantic and funny and has great characters. My favorite marketing book right now is The Long Tail by Chris Anderson. He gave me a lot of perspective on book marketing.

A little about Social Punk: Ima would give anything to escape The Dome and learn what’s beyond its barriers, but the Chicago government has kept all its citizens on lockdown ever since the Scorched Years left most of the world a desert wasteland. When a mysterious group of hooded figures enters the city unexpectedly, Ima uncovers a plot to destroy The Dome and is given the choice between escaping to a new, dangerous city or staying behind and fighting a battle she can never win.

Who knew that something like beer can be all about the community and family?  Isn’t it about wild drunkenness?  That would probably be especially true on St. Patrick’s day.  Even so, Heineken managed to get that wholesome message out via the St. Patrick’s Day parade nationally televised coverage.  John Dully was interviewed by NBC (They didn’t show his name, so I hope I spelled it right.  I also only know that he worked for Heineken but don’t know in what capacity.)  John spoke about New York, which is not a key market for the brand but also the community to which he and the employees belong.  In addition, John was the perfect interviewee having a personally connection to the parade, which allowed him to talk of family values.  This is an exceptionally wholesome message for a beer, and the perfect message for national audience on this fine Saturday morning. 

What is the relationship with Heineken and the parade?  I know you’re a sponsor, but what is it about it that you want to get behind?

Essentially it’s new york.  this is our largest market, our employees and customers live in the New York market.  And when you think of New York, you think of the parade.  When you think of New York, you think of Heineken. And we want to be a part of that something special and get back to the community as well.

20 years ago, your grandfather was the Grand Marshall of the Parade.  How has the parade changed?

It’s about family, tradition, roots.  Never forget where you come from

Okay, let’s talk about word of mouth.  What’s the buzz around the water coolers today?

The Grammys.

And perhaps it’s because I work in marketing, but there was a very specific moment about the Grammy’s that garnered quite a bit of attention.

Yes, Chipotle’s touching commercial ‘Back to Start’ that the Hollywood Gossip thought stole the show and put all Super Bowl ads to shame.

But why exactly is this commercial buzz-worthy?  Why is the Hollywood Gossip even talking about it today.  After all, it’s kind of old news.  This video has been airing in 10,000 theaters worldwide for a few months now.  Oh, perhaps you don’t indulgence in theater anymore in this economy.  And heck, why would you need to with netflix?

But, did you know that this had been thriving in social media for months now?  In fact, it had already had over 4 million views prior to Grammy night.

This is why the ROI or the success of social media is so hard to measure.  4 million views over the course of a few months versus nearly 40 million views on Grammys night.  While the cost for a Grammys commercial is reported to top $800K for just 30 seconds (a bargain compared to the $3.5 million price tag during Super Bowl), the cost of producing that video is not small either.  This lovely story started with virtual modeling.  Then the team built 3D models of all the pigs, cows, and farmers.  Then, they built the set with the model puppets.  Then, they filmed it and finally edited and finished it.  Don’t forget the cost of having Willie Nelson cover Coldplay’s ‘The Scientist’.  I don’t know for sure, but I just assumed that he didn’t do it for free.

Then, there were all the supporting videos that were produced and housed on YouTube.  There was the Behind the Scene video.  There was the sustainable farmer story video.  There was the farmer hardship video.  There was the ecosystem video.  Then, finally, there was the Chipotle fresh food philosophy video.  This was one robust online video PR campaign.

But would the online campaign really got mass attention if it wasn’t for the Grammys?

And would the Grammys commercial alone get enough people into Chipotle without the YouTube video campaign?

It’s an ‘integral’ part of the campaign, one may say.  But just exactly how much value did the entire YouTube campaign bring to the picture?  That’s the question.  It seemed to me that the ‘social media win’ was achieved based on the on-air old fashion television commercial

So the question remains:  How to measure success of a social media campaign?

Let’s get the discussion started.  Here are some tweetable bits:

Did you love the Chipotle commercial during the #Grammys?  Did you know it’s old? http://bit.ly/wTd1ai @jeannie_chan

How did Chipotle achieved the ‘social media win’?  With YouTube or with #Grammys? http://bit.ly/wTd1ai @jeannie_chan

As with all things, it came down to execution.  On this front, Kia won by a mile.

First of all, Kia teased the ad.  It prepared the crowd for brand association.  You knew that during the Game, Lima will be in a Kia commercial.  More importantly, during the commercial, it was clear that the car was the star, and Lima played only a supporting role (a very beautiful one at that).  Even in a 15 second teaser ad where the car was not shown, it was clear that it was a car commercial.  There was the checkered race flag, a clear car symbol.  Also, the brand was clearly and prominently displayed at the closing.  That kind of attention to branding was only amplified during the full 30 second commercial.

Teleflora on the other hand was basically a commercial for Lima herself.  It focused and featured Lima’s sexy self.  There was very minimal branding.  And this just doesn’t work.  It doesn’t work when you have an unknown model, and it works even less when you have a well known model.  Lima’s sexy image links back to the Victoria’s Secret brand image.  If you show off this side of her, you’re almost creating a Victoria’s Secret commercial.  In fact, the Teleflora commercial is a less well-made version of a 2008 Victoria’s Secret commercial also featuring Lima.

And the public agrees.  USAToday’s ad meter poll shows that Kia is ranked as the #2, while Teleflora is somewhere much further down.  The lesson?  Whenever you use a model or a spokesperson, understand how your brand equity works with the brand equity of the model.  The key is to make sure you understand how they can enhance your brand.

Kia knows that sex sells.  In fact, sex sells cars very well.  There has been a long history of using pretty models to sell cars.  But at the end of the day, it was still about the car.  Kia sells cars – not sexy models.

Let’s get the discussion started.  Here are some tweetable bits:

SEX.  Now that I got your attention, are you really going to buy? http://bit.ly/yY6GiJ @jeannie_chan

Sex sells.  Wait, we also know sex doesn’t actually sell anything but sex? http://bit.ly/yY6GiJ @jeannie_chan

So many of the Super Bowl ads were already either aired on television or aired online.  The surprise factor is gone.  The truth was that there wasn’t that much surprises to begin with.  Perhaps it’s the economy.  The ads were mostly conservative and expected.  In fact, many of them gave a nod to the ads from prior years or used legacy icons (which I actually adore.  I love Darth Vader and I love polar bears.).  And who don’t like the Clydesdales and Dalmatian?  But what happened to creativity like the Budweiser Wazzup?  That kind of creativity went viral before “going viral” was a commonly used phrase.  In today’s social media filled world, I’m surprised not more commercials took advantage to do more.  Even GoDaddy was expected and boring…

There was one new icon that emerged this year:  brown M&M.  That was adorable!  Was that actually racier than GoDaddy?

Let’s get the discussion started.  Here are some tweetable bits:

Wait.  Did M&M outsex GoDaddy?  http://bit.ly/y0xCi5 @jeannie_chan

What happened to creativity this year?  Wazzup? http://bit.ly/y0xCi5 @jeannie_chan

As a marketer, I’m confused, and I don’t think I’m the only one.  Axe built its brand on a borderline racy message targeted specifically to male.  That message is one that’s hard to translate to attract female.  So, how can you have a consistent brand message?

Looking at Axe’s commercial for Anarchy, one can see that Anarchy is still about this crazy sexual attraction.  Men attract Women.  Women attract Men.  Thus, Anarchy.

But, I wonder what’s the strategy behind this message.  Similar tactic have been deployed before by other brands.  Victoria’s Secret has Very Sexy for the ladies and Very Sexy for Him for the men.  Victoria’s Secret is no doubt a female brand that’s all about sexy.  How does this brand attract men?  Well, I would argue that it wasn’t trying to get men to start buying fragrance at VS.  It’s attracted female shoppers to buy for her men.  The target never changed.

There are even occasion where the target may possibly have changed.  Dove Men+Care is a good example of such.  True, there is a good chance that the girlfriend or wife does the shopping and is picking this up for the man in her life.  There is also a chance that men are actually picking it up for themselves.  But Dove has a clear message that could cut across gender.  Men I understand also have dry skin.  If there is a shower gel that works to fix this problem without going all girly and putting on lotions and other skin products, it’s not a bad solution for men.  Therefore, Dove can stay true to its brand – moisturization.

But I don’t see that being the case for Axe.  First of all, I think they are not targeting the same shoppers.  I don’t think it’s ever a good idea for a man to buy his significant other personal care products.  “Are you saying I stink?” would be the inevitable question that would land the man in the dog house.  So, is Axe trying to attract female shoppers?  If so, is this message of sex, sex, sex appropriate to women?  As a women myself, my personal opinion is not.  Men and women view sex and attraction differently.  Some may argue that sex is the end-goal for men, and attracting the girl is how they achieve that goal.  Some may argue that sex however is not the end-goal for women.  Attracting the man is to attract her prince who would love her forever (yeah, I read all those happily ever after stories as a kid). 

Try as they may, these two point of views cannot be succinctly communicated in the same 30-second commercial.  Good attempt though, there is a love song playing in the background… yeah… 

And let’s look at their campaign.  It’s a graphics novel.  Do women read graphics novels?  Oh, yeah, we must be reading it because of the bombshell babes we aspire to be…

For the purpose of research, I thought I’d at least give the product a try before saying it wouldn’t be successful.  After all, I give a lot of credit for having a good product.  A good product can survive without good marketing.  Good marketing cannot save a bad product.  But alas, I couldn’t find any in my local drug stores (and I checked several).  I did find the Axe Anarchy display, but they only had the male products.  The female product was a trial size of sort attached to a male product.  As a single gal, I didn’t see the point of buying the male product to try the female one.  Also, looking at the product bundle, Axe Anarchy has a male body spray, a male shampoo/conditioner, a male body wash, and a lonely female body spray.   As a woman, I find it hard to feel like this is a product that’s designed for me.

Yeah, I’m confused.  Are you?

Let’s get the discussion started.  Here are some tweetable bits:

Axe launches female product.  Love it or hate it?  http://bit.ly/xjIzeG @jeannie_chan

Axe targeting female shoppers.  Make sense?  http://bit.ly/xjIzeG @jeannie_chan

People are separated into groups in different ways.  By location.  By age.  Or by gender.  It’s very common for a brand to talk to a specific gender.  After all, it is one of the easiest way to target or to differentiate.  People move.  People age.  But even in this day and age, few people change genders.  So, it’s pretty easy for a brand to expand across locations.  To age with their consumers.  But, it’s a whole different ball game when a brand wants to talk to the other gender.

That seems to be the hot idea of the new year.

In the new year, Lego launched Friends collection, targeting girls. 

The new Friends collection is the result of years of research by Lego on how girls play.  The toys are not just different because it’s pink.  It’s also different in the sense that it’s not just focused on building, but it’s also focused on playing, storytelling, play pretending.  The girl figure is also a departure from the known and loved Lego figure of the past.  The figure is more curvy and less blocky.  The head also has a hole that allows for accessories such as bows to be added on top of the hair.  The fact that there is a bow is already a departure of the typical Lego experience.  The old, boys targeted Lego, focused on building.  Therefore, Lego would basically tell you EXACTLY how the finished product should look.  The finish product included that sword in that figure’s hand.  In Friends, girls play as they build.  To add a bow, to not add a bow, that depends on the story the girls want to tell with their toys.  Lego couldn’t dictate that.  These are the subtle, yet important, elements that could potentially make Friends a great success for Lego.  This is how Lego does dollhouses.

Many have their doubts, as often would happen whenever a brand deviate from the tried and trued.  But in this case, I would like to think that Lego will succeed.  Because while the toys are targeted to an entirely different audience, the target consumer hasn’t change for Lego.  Lego is still targeting PARENTS.  Lego is offering good wholesome toys for parents to give to their kids.  So, they are staying true to their product promise.  While I was wandering the Lego store the other day, I saw quite a few parents picking up the Friends collection.  If Lego stays dedicated in developing toys that allows girls be girls and boys be boys, Lego could very well make products that will have parents pick up a set for each of their kids!

Let’s get the discussion started.  Here are some tweetable bits:

Lego for girls.  I think that’s cute.  Do you?  http://bit.ly/xePs7e @jeannie_chan

Lego is not just for boys anymore.  Neat idea!  http://bit.ly/xePs7e @jeannie_chan

Worst yet, if the choices are not vastly different, you may be asking consumers to choose base on value.  For example, if your “new and improved” formula is not truly differentiating to your consumers, they may pick the cheaper “original” version.  In another scenario, if all SKUs look the same anyway, consumers may just pick up whatever is on promotion.  This trains consumers to shop on deals, which reset the price your brand is able to command.

So, the question becomes how to provide real choice to consumers?

This post was in part inspired by Tom Fisbourne’s post last week.  But I thought his Marketoon from 2003 illustrated the point even better.

Let’s get the discussion started.  Here are some tweetable bits:

Are you providing a real choice to your consumers?  http://bit.ly/w8cFKM @jeannie_chan

Are you seeing a sea of the same on shelf? http://bit.ly/w8cFKM @jeannie_chan

I have been toying with an idea: a new direction for this blog.  Thus far, this blog has been random observations and lessons.  But a central theme in marketing has been resonating with me, and perhaps it’d be a good idea to have more posts surrounding this central theme. 

What’s this theme, you ask?

Love the Haters.

Since a brand cannot be everyone to everyone, by definition, it’s going to attract some people, and repel some people.  You know that you’ve achieved this if you have people who loves your brand AND if you have people who hates your brand.

I love this quote from Sally Hogshead, author of Fascinate:  “If you’re not generating a negative reaction from someone, you’re probably not fascinating anyone.”

But then… the question is… how do you grow?  If haters are supposed to stay haters, how do you attract more brand lovers?

Seth Godin today proposed the following:  “And the best plan for the insurgent brand? To find a smaller tribe, become the presumed winner there, and scale it up across tribes.”

The trick becomes how do you identify the next tribe…? 

That’s one of the many questions I’ve been pondering.  This blog will continue to explore this subject.  In the meantime, what do you think?

Let’s get this discussion going.  Here are some tweetable bits:

Love them brand haters.  http://bit.ly/Anhni0 @jeannie_chan

Where to find brand lovers?  http://bit.ly/Anhni0 @jeannie_chan

Photo credit: Nancy Everson