The Facebook Fad

I’m sure someone will shoot me for saying this, but I don’t get Facebook.  I mean, I get it, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about.  I made similar comments before about Gmail (here, here), and people told me I was an idiot at the time.  Three years later, Gmail is certainly a popular webmail service, but it’s hardly changed the world. In fact, it’s a distant fourth behind Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL.  So I don’t feel so bad about not oohing and ahhing and slobbering all over the place about Facebook.

Facebook reminds me of AOL back in the day.  AOL was the most simple, elegant, general purpose entree for people who wanted to get online and weren’t sure how in the early days of online services, before the Internet came of age.  It was good at packaging up its content and putting everything “in a box.”  It was clean.  It was fun.  People bragged about being an AOL member and talked about their screen name like it was on their birth certificate or something.  And the company capitalized on all the goodwill by becoming a PR machine to perpetuate its membership growth.

Now Facebook — it’s the most simple, elegant, general purpose social networking site here in the early days of social networking.  It’s pretty good about packaging up its applications, and certainly opening up its APIs is a huge benefit that AOL didn’t figure out until it embraced the open web in 1999-2000.  It is pretty good about putting everything in a box for me as a member.  And like AOL, the company is turning into a PR juggernaut and hoping to use it to perpetuate its registration numbers.

But let’s look at the things that caused (IMO) AOL’s downfall (AOL as we knew it) and look at the parallels with Facebook.  AOL quickly became too cluttered.  It’s simple elegance was destroyed by too much stuff jammed into its clean interface.  It couldn’t keep up with best of breed content or even messaging systems inside its walled garden.  Spam crushed its email functionality.  It couldn’t maintain its “all things to all people” infrastructure on the back end.  Ultimately, the open web washed over it.  People who defected were simply having better experiences elsewhere.

The parallels aren’t exact, but there are certainly some strong ones.  Facebook is already too cluttered for me.  Why are people writing on my wall instead of emailing me — all that does is trigger an email from Facebook to me telling me to come generate another page view for them.  Why am I getting invitations to things on Facebook instead of through the much better eVite platform?  The various forms of messaging are disorganized and hard to find. 

Most important, for a social network, it turns out that I don’t actually want my entire universe of friends and contacts to be able to connect with each other through me.  Like George Costanza in Seinfeld, I apparently have a problem with my “worlds colliding.”  I already know of one couple who either hooked up or is heavily flirting by connecting through my Facebook profile, and it’s not one I’m proud to have spawned.  I think I let one of them “be my friend” by mistake in the first place.  And I am a compulsive social networker.  It’s hard to imagine that these principles scale unfettered to the whole universe.

The main thing Facebook has going for it in this comparison is that its open APIs will lead to best of breed development for the platform.  But who cares about Facebook as a platform?  Isn’t the open web (or Open Social) ultimately going to wash over it?  I get that there are cool apps being written for Facebook – but 100% of those applications will be on the open web as well.  It’s certainly possible that Facebook’s marrying of my “social network” with best of breed applications will make it stickier for longer than AOL…but let’s remember that AOL has clung to life as a proprietary service for quite a while on the stickiness of people’s email addresses.  And yet, it is a non-event now as a platform. 

It will be interesting to see how Facebook bobs and weaves over the coming years to avoid what I think of as its inevitable fate.  And yes, I know I’m not 18 and if I were, I’d like Facebook more and spend all day in it.  But that to me reinforces my point even more — this is the same crew who flocked to, and then quickly from, MySpace.  When will they get tired of Facebook, and what’s to prevent them moving onto the next fad?

It’s The Little Things

My credit card expires at the end of this month, so Citibank just sent me a new one.  I’d guess that about 50 web sites, maybe 75, have my credit card on file and know that it’s about to expire.  Only two of them — that’s right, only two — Typepad (my blogging software from company Six Apart) and Mobil Speedpass sent me reminders to come back and update my account.  And at that, Mobil sent its reminder via snail mail.  Typepad’s was an easy one-click right to my account’s profile page on the web site.

How is it that only one or two companies got it right?  This is one of those little opportunities to remind customers that you are thinking about them and their needs. 

As for the others, I guess they’re just going to reject some upcoming transaction or auto-bill.  I guarantee you that at least one of them will screw me as a result (my money is on someone in the telco world).  For all the other companies with whom I transact online or via Mastercard, I am now scouring my last few months worth of Citibank bills and then going web site by web site, updating my card’s expiration date.  Reminds me of the days before we launched ECOA where you had to go update your email address one web site at a time…

Email Articles This Week

I know, not a real inspired headline.  There are two interesting articles floating around about email marketing this week.  I have a few thoughts on both.

First, David Daniels from Jupiter writes in ClickZ about Assigning a Value to Email Addresses.  David’s numbers show that 71% of marketers don’t put a value on their email addresses.  I think that may be an understatement, but it’s a telling figure nonetheless.  David’s article is right on and gives marketers some good direction on how to think about valuing email addresses.  The one thing he doesn’t address explicitly, though, is how to think about the value of an email address in the context of a multi-channel customer relationship.  Customer Lifetime Value is all good and well, but the more sophisticated marketers take the next step and try to understand by customer (or segment) how valuable email is relative to other channels.

Second, David Baker writes in Mediapost’s Email Insider about Finding New Customers Via Email.  The column is a nice discussion of how important email is to retaining customers.  We at Return Path completely agree.  However, the question Baker posed at the beginning is not well addressed — “Should I use email to find new customers?”

My company works with hundreds of smart marketers every week who say, “Yes!  Because it’s effective, cost efficient and is the only way to combine the relevancy of search with the power of online advertising.”

I applaud Baker’s note of caution to marketers planning to acquire customers via email.  It’s always a good idea to plan the campaign with the same diligence you plan any marketing outreach — making sure the targeting, message, design and offer are all optimized for the prospect interest and the medium.

However, I take great issue with his conclusion that email acquisition marketing “does more harm than good.”  Our clients disprove this claim every day.  Email prospecting done well includes a synergy of organic, viral and paid techniques.  Consumers and business professionals still want to receive relevant and informative offers via email.  More than 50,000 of them sign up every DAY for email offers from Return Path alone.

Poeple who have failed list rental tests (and there are lots of them) need to ask some hard questions of their campaign strategy, their creative, their list rental partner, and their agency.  Did you try to send the same message and design to a list of prospects as you do to your house file?  No wonder no one got the message, they don’t even know you.  Was your list double opt-in?   Did you segment the list by interest category or demographics?  Perhaps your message was mis-targeted.  Did your landing page make it easy to take advantage of the offer?  Did you test on a small portion of the list before blasting the entire file?  Did you optimize your subject line to ensure higher open rates?  Did you try to do too much?  The golden rule of email list rental is “one email, one message.”

The success of many marketers using list rental today can not be ignored.  Done well, email acquisition is extremely powerful.  And, the addition of new lead generation, co-registration and offer aggregation opportunities create even more custom and targeted opportunities to connect with prospects.

It’s too easy to dismiss something that didn’t work two years ago by blaming the medium.  Instead, recognize that old experience for what it was.  A well-intentioned effort to test out a new medium, that didn’t work because many tried to apply practices from other media to it.  Times have changed, and email acquisition has proven its value.

Stick with Daniels’ article, figure out how valuable an email address can be for you, then go out and collect as many of them as you can from customers and prospects who will be all-too-willing to give them to you in exchange for content, offers, and other points of value.

Not Dead Yet

Ah Spring.  Flowers bloom.  Love is in the air.  And it’s time for the annual round of “email is dead” articles and blog posts.  With apologies to Monty Python, and on the heels of last week’s fracas about social networking having more users than email, once again I say, email is Not Dead Yet!

Three articles of late are pretty interesting and point out that the trends in online channel usage are far murkier than meets the eye.

First, Sherry Chiger’s story in Direct that One in Five Merchants Shuns Marketing Email has a poor headline for an interesting, data-rich article.  The article should be about how “Four in Five” adopt.  The article has links to a bunch of interesting in-depth reports you can download, but some of the eye-catching stats include the fact that more B2C companies use email than their own web site for marketing (96% vs. 90%); that the #1 use of “if I had more money in my marketing budget, it would go to” is “creating more sophisticated email”; and that email is the “most valuable online strategy,” beating out SEO and materially ahead of Social Media, SEM, sending offline traffic online, affiliate, display, and abandoned shopping cart marketing.

Sherry’s follow up article entitled E-mail and Social Media: The New Chocolate and Peanut Butter

 and Liana Evans’ article in ClickZ, Email Can Be Social Media’s Best Friend, both explain the interplay of email and social media nicely.  You can’t, or at least shouldn’t, have one without the other.  This matches our experience at Return Path, where a number of our largest clients are the biggest social networks.  We always say that “social networking runs on email.”  Look at your inbox sometime and see how many messages are from Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc., which prompt you to create page views for them, um, I mean, visit their sites.

And of course the recent Morgan Stanley data is somewhat problematic (chart published here among other places).  First, I’m not sure where their base data came from, but I’ve never seen an estimate of worldwide email users that’s only 850MM.  The Morgan Stanley report says there are 1.8B people online worldwide, and there are been stats consistently published over the years that between 80-95% of people online use email.  This report from Radicati has the number of email users worldwide growing from 1.4B last year to 1.9B over the next few years. That sounds more like it.  

There’s no question that people spend more time in social networks and will continue to. They’re more multi-faceted. But that “error” in reporting on number of email addresses pretty dramatically changes the two charts. Plus, don’t you have to have an email account to sign up for most social networks?  And as my colleague Ezra Fischer noted, how the counting works in these two charts is important. For example, I have 2-3 email accounts, but I have 10-12 social network accounts. Am I counted once in each category, or 2-3 in the first and 10-12 in the second? Or worse, once in the first and 10-12 times in the second?

Anyway, every time I write one of these “in defense of email” posts, I get criticized for having too vested an interest in the subject matter to be objective.  If that’s the case, so be it – but who else is going to highlight the positive counterpoints when the buzz is all pointed to the demise of email?

Everyone’s a Direct Marketer, Part II

(If you missed the first post in this series, it’s here.)

So, all companies are now direct marketers — their web sites and email lists make it so, they can’t effectively reach their fragmented audience without it, and consumer permission demands it.  Why is this new to some companies and not others, and what lessons can companies who are new at it learn from traditional direct marketers?

First, the quick answer — it’s new because it’s being driven by the new technologies the Internet has brought us in the past 10 years.  Those technologies have opened up the possibility for 1:1 communication between any company and its customers that was previously unaffordable to many industries with low price point products.  You never received a telemarketing call for a movie, because making the call costs $3, and all you’ll spend on the movie is $10.  P&G never sent you a glossy direct mail piece for toothpaste, because they’d spend $1 at a small chance you’ll buy their $2.25 product.  But the cost of a banner ad or a given keyword or an incremental email is so low (virtually zero in some cases), that everyone can afford a direct presence today.

What lessons can companies who are new at it learn from traditional direct marketers?  There are many, but four things stand out to me that good DMers do well that are different from the skills inherent in traditional marketing/advertising:

1. Take the creative process seriously.  Just because you can dash off an important email to your staff in 30 seconds doesn’t mean your marketing people should do the same to your customers.  Put your email campaigns or templates through a rigorous development and approval process, just as you would a newspaper ad or radio spot.  There’s just no excuse for typos, bad grammar, or sloppy graphics in email or on a web site.

2.  Use live testing and feedback loops.  It’s hard to test two versions of a TV commecial without incurrent significant extra cost.  It’s impossible to test 20.  But with today’s software, you can test 10 versions of your home page, or 100 versions of your email campaign, almost instantly, and refine your message on the fly to maximize response.

3. Make transparency part of your corporate culture.  Just as you can have a 1:1 relationship with your customers, your customers expect a 1:1 relationship back.  If they want to know what data you store on them, tell them.  If they want you to stop emailing/calling/mailing them, stop.  If they want to know more about your products or policies, let them in.  Think about marketing more as a dialog with your customers, and less as you messaging them.

4. Merge content with advertising.  Old-school advertisers didn’t have to worry about this one, because their ads were always surrounded by other people’s content (TV, newspaper, radio, magazines).  But in direct marketing, your message is sometimes the only message around.  Make it interesting.  Make it entertaining.  I always think the prototypical example of this as the old J. Peterman catalog, which was trying to sell clothing and accessories by creating stories and mystique around each product.  But there are tons of other examples as well, especially around email newsletters.

Next up in the series:  What does this mean for the way companies will be structured or operate in the future?

My friend Seth has a theory about life called the French Fry Theory. The theory is simple — “you always have room for one more fry.” It’s pretty spot-on, if you think about it. Fries are so tasty, and so relatively small (most of the time), that it’s easy to just keep eating, and eating, and eating them.

I’ve always thought that the French Fry Theory can be applied to many things, usually other food items. However, I came up with a new application today: Marketing.

So why are French Fries like Marketing? You can always do one more thing. One more press release. One more piece of collateral. One more page on the corporate web site. One more newsletter. Trade show. Webinar. Research study. Ad. Search engine placement. Vendor. System. Speech. Take your pick.

The world we operate in is so dynamic that marketing (when done well) is nearly impossible to ever feel like you’re completely on top of. There’s always more to be done, and the trick to doing it well is knowing when to say “no” as much as when to charge into something.

My hat’s off to 21st century online-industry marketers. To bring this analogy back to its starting point…their plates are full!

I think Facebook is starting to get out of control from a usability perspective.  This doesn’t mean it’s not a great platform and that it doesn’t have utility.  But if the platform continues on its current path, the core system runs the risk of going sideways like its various predecessors:  GeoCities, MySpace, etc.  Maybe I’ll go in there to look for something or someone, but it won’t be a place I scroll through as part of a daily or semi-daily routine.

I wrote about this a year ago now, and while the site has some better tools to assign friends to groups, it doesn’t do any better job than it did a year ago about segregating information flow, either by group or by some kind of intelligence.

I don’t know why my home page, news feed, RSS feed, and iPhone app can’t easily show me posts from people I care about, but if it can’t do that soon enough, I will almost entirely stop using it.  Can’t Facebook measure the strength of my connections?  Can’t it at least put my wife’s posts at the top?  My usage is already way down, and the trend is clear.

And I won’t really comment on Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s inane remark last week that “email is dead because young people don’t use it” other than to paraphrase two things I read on a discussion list I’m on:  “Just checked, and you still need an email address to sign-up for a Facebook account,” and “Most teens don’t buy stocks so Wall Street has no future.”  More entertaining analogies from Loren McDonald of Silverpop are listed here.

(This is the third post in the series… The first one When to Hire your first CMO is here, and What does Great Look Like in a CMO is here).

 In Startup CXO I wrote that I always think that the French Fry Theory can be applied to many things, usually other food items. The French Fry Theory is the idea that you always have room to eat one more fry and in my case I always do. But the same idea applies to marketing because you can always do “one more thing.” One more press release. One more piece of collateral. One more page on the corporate web site. One more newsletter. Trade show. Webinar. Research study. Ad. Search engine placement. Vendor. System. Speech. Take your pick.

The world we operate in is so dynamic that marketing (when done well) is nearly impossible to ever feel like you’re completely on top of and it’s near impossible to get closure. There’s always more to be done, and the trick to doing it well is knowing when to say “no” as much as when to charge into something. In my experience, CMOs who aren’t scaling well past the startup stage are the ones who typically do one or all of the following.

First, they’re stuck in “french fry mode” and treat all tasks like french fries. They focus on task execution (eating the next fry) and can’t pull up to think about whether they’re doing the right thing (should they be ordering another plate of fries?) and they are simply not scaling. If your CMO is constantly putting out fires that’s a sign that they may be too task-oriented and not strategic enough.

 Another sign that your CMO isn’t scaling is if they report on activity as opposed to outcomes. This is related to my prior point.  When all the world is a task list, then report-outs are just volumes of tasks but tasks are not the same as productivity or results.  I’m not sure why marketing ended up like this, but it’s frequently the only function in the company that spends time producing beautiful reports on all the stuff they do.  It probably comes from years of working with agencies who report like that to justify client spend.  Regardless, can you imagine seeing reports on activity instead of outcomes from other departments? Do you really need the report from the CFO that talks about how many collections calls the team made as opposed to reporting on bad debt? Or a report from the CRO talking about how many meetings a rep had with no mention of pipeline or closes – seriously?  No thank you.  CMOs who can’t link activity to outcome with a focus on outcome are not scaling with the job and for all you know they may be rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

A final sign that your CMO isn’t scaling is if they spend disproportionate amounts of time on creative or agency work.  That’s the glamorous and fun part of marketing, for sure.  Having made TV commercials as a head of marketing when I was at MovieFone, I can attest to that.  But even if you’re a big B2C marketer with a lot of agency and creative spend, while you should be supervising that work, spending all your time on it is a sign that you’re not interested in all the other, well, french fries.

Marketing is becoming increasingly complex and differentiated, and it can easily be a service center as opposed to a strategic function. I don’t think that’s ideal, but that may be how a company decides to run it. But even if it is a service function your CMO needs to able to create space in their day for thinking and analysis, they need to be strategic, and they need to be able to stop doing “one more thing.”

( You can find this post on the Bolster Blog here)

(Post 1 of 4 in the series of Scaling CPO’s)

 Most startups don’t have a Chief Privacy Officer and just rely on outside advice from external counsel or a privacy consultant. In Startup CXO our Chief Privacy Officer from Return Path, Dennis Dayman, strongly advocates for privacy to be baked into a startup at the very beginning. Some startups probably don’t have any help in this area at all but given the importance of privacy and security issues today that’s a mistake.

If your startup doesn’t start life with a Chief Privacy Officer you’ll have to heed some warning signs and here are some I’ve picked up over the years. First, you’ll know it’s time to hire a Chief Privacy Officer when you wake up in the middle of the night terrified that you’re going to find your company on the front page of the newspaper or served a subpoena to testify before Congress about a data breach. Even if you’re not waking up in the middle of the night you might be concerned about privacy if you are spending too much of your own time trying to understand what PCI Compliance, or HIPAA, or GDPR means to your business. Or if you really don’t see the connections between your business and privacy issues in general, then a Chief Privacy Officer can be very helpful.

You might get tough questions from your board on what your data breach client communication plan is, and if you don’t have a great answer and aren’t sure how to get to one, then it’s time to think about a Privacy Officer.

A fractional Chief Privacy Officer may be the best option for most startups…forever. Sometimes you can find one fractional executive for both the Privacy and Chief Information Security Officer roles. You probably can’t get by without a full-time leader in this area if you are large (>$50mm in revenue) and are sitting on a massive amount of consumer data, especially if that information involves PII, financial, or health information.  But if that’s not you, a fractional Chief Privacy Officer may be the way to go.  While a fractional executive is similar to an outside lawyer or consultant, an executive has a company title for external credibility and the personal commitment to the organization to ensure compliance. A fractional exeuctive is way more than a consultant since they’ll be able to provide guidance to employees and represent the company as if they were a full-time Chief Privacy Officer.

Not every startup needs a Chief Privacy Officer since you can cover your bases with lawyers or consultants, but if you’re collecting lots of data from jurisdictions across the world you’d be wise to get a Privacy officer, or a fractional executive, sooner rather than later.

(You can find this post on the Bolster Blog here)

Parenting and Corporate Leadership

Let me be clear up front:  I do not think of my colleagues at Return Path as children, and I do not think of Casey, Wilson, and Elyse as employees.  That said, after a couple weeks of good quality family time in January, I was struck by the realization that being a CEO for a long time before having kids has made me a better parent…and I think being a new parent the last three years has made me a better CEO. 

Here's why.  The two roles have a heavy overlap in required core interpersonal competencies.  And doing both of them well means you're practicing those competencies twice as many hours in a week than just doing one – and in different settings.  It's like cross training.  In no order, the cross-over competencies I can think of are…

Decisiveness.  Be wishy washy at work, and the team can get stuck in a holding pattern.  Be wishy washy with kids, they run their agenda, not yours.

Listening.  As my friend Anita says, you have two ears and one mouth for a reason.  Listening to your team at work, and also listening for what's not being said, is the best way to understand what's going on in your organization.  Kids need to be heard as well.  The best way to teach good verbal communication skills is to ask questions and then listen actively and attentively to the responses.

Focus.  Basically, no one benefits from multitasking, even if it feels like a more efficient way of working.  Anyone you're spending time with, whether professionally or at home, deserves your full attention. The reality is that the human brain is full of entropy anyway, so even a focused conversation, meeting, or play time, is somehow compromised.  Actually doing other activities at the same time destroys the human connection.

Patience.  For the most part, steering people to draw their own conclusions about things at work is key.  Even if it takes longer than just telling them what to do, it produces better results.  With kids, patience takes on a whole new meaning, but giving them space to work through issues and scenarios on their own, while hard, clearly fosters independence.

Alignment.  If you and your senior staff disagree about something, cross-communication confuses the team.  If you and your spouse aren't on the same page about something, watch those kids play the two of you off each other.  A united front at the top is key!

I'm sure there are others…but these are the main things that jump to mind.  And of course one can be great in one area without being in the other area at all, or without being great in it.  Are you a parent and a business leader?  What do you think?

Context is King

A small post with a good point.  I noticed in The Economist this week something that struck me.  They posted a correction to a prior article.  Publications do that all the time, but this particular correction was placed on a page in the same section of the magazine in which the error appeared a couple weeks before.  Most print publications tend to bury their corrections in the front or the back where they never get seen.  But this one was right in the middle of the magazine, saying “we made a mistake – right here.”  Noteworthy to me for its show of transparency, always appreciated but not seen frequently enough in “official” things.