Church of the Customer Blog
« Money vs. gold | Main | Hype vs. excitement: expanded »
July 07, 2009
Money vs. gold
The hubbub surrounding Moonfruit giving away 10 Macs over 10 days on Twitter is a good lesson for marketers on money vs. gold.
Give away money and people will question your motives or simply yawn with boredom.
Give away gold -- like a pallet of Macbook Pros, or tickets to the Michael Jackson memorial service -- and they'll line up for blocks.
Other blogs that reference Money vs. gold:
Sure they'll line up, but here's the kicker:
Who cares.
Sure it's building a short term buzz, but is it memorable? Is this building a connection with their biggest fans? Is this building ANYTHING for the long run?
Doing some big giveaway takes no skill. Understanding your biggest fans, connecting & empowering them to speak on your behalf, and sharing the mutual trust that comes along with that relationship takes grit and passion that creates long lasting effects. Effects that will stand the test of time...far after any contest or giveaway has passed.
Sure it's nice to say "hey ma, look - we're at the top of the trending topics, and we have XX,XXX followers!"
Again, who cares.
Are any of those followers meaningful? Or are they just looking for your latest freebie?
Remember Squarespare? They were the guys who gave away 30 iPhones in 30 days. Top of the trending topics one week, forgotten the next. Disappeared.
If it sounds like I don't like Twitter contests, let me clarify something:
I despise them.
Why? Because it's the next chapter in the slow demise of yet *another* medium. And once again, us marketers are to blame. It started with the "experts." Then came the blind & fake linking. Then we had "follow us & tag our name to enter our contest!" And now we have pallets of Macbooks being given away. And next month some start-up will give away 10 HDTV's, and the next month, 200 netbooks, etc. etc.
Sound familiar? That's right, IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERY OTHER MEDIUM us marketing folks have ruined. It starts innocently enough with connecting with fans, entertainment, a helpful service, and before long, we find a way to saturate it with our pleas for attention in the form of too-good-to-be-true offers. Instead of building support organically through remarkable service or content, we sacrifice relationship-building for attention...and cheapen the medium in the process.
Over time, skepticism builds, trust in the medium is broken, and people move onto the next communication channel.
Moonfruit, I've got an idea for you. Build a buzz at being exceptional at what you do. Connect with your users. Heck, send your biggest fans a little something every once in a while. Macbooks aren't necessary...how about a t-shirt, a mouse with your branding, I dunno.
Be exceptional to your users and fans. And guess what?
You won't be known as "those guys who gave away Macs" but rather as "those guys who provide exceptional support, run an exceptional service, who listen...who care."
/rant
Sorry for bringing this on your wonderful blog. If you can't tell, I'm just a *tad* passionate about this :)
tend to agree with this -- however, let's not dis it too quickly. could be social/network 'flash' promos have little lasting value for deep loyalty and deep-branding. however, such 'flash' or even 'fluff-puff' promos, if broad enough, might be someone's intro to a service/product they love & become a loyal evangelist for. not all branding is created, or expected to be 'Equal'. it's not and that's okay. it is what it is.
david
I wish people would also realize that quality over quantity is always better. Meaning, getting in a conversation and making a connection is better than just giving away stuff like those macboook pros.
I think the point of this post was the differences between perceived value of an item versus cash, not whether a promotion of itself is advisable.
Promotions are a way to create "buzz," and as you point out in great deal @Josh, companies do well to avoid flash--in-the-pants syndrome by carefully constructing a way to leverage the promotion.
My assumption (and hope) is that Moonfruit will use this opportunity to engage its new followers over time in the way you suggest.
Being the website builder that it is and considering the Apple-like simplicity and apparently ease-of-use interface, it seems to me that the choice to give away Macs was a logical one. A quick look at their web site reveals that they offer easy Twitter integration, so using Twitter as their medium of choice for the campaign also seems like a wise one to me -- again, provided they wisely engage conversation with their new followers.
I get what you are saying @Josh, but like @David points out, I think promotions like this can be a way to bring people into the funnel and excite the current fan base.
As for Squarespace, long before their Twitter give-away, they had a great following and actively engaged with and responded to their customer base. From my experience with Squarespace, describing them as "Top of the trending topics one week, forgotten the next. Disappeared." is inaccurate and uninformed.
As for Square
Sorry Josh, but I'm going to have to agree with Tshombe on this one. I would expound more but I think they summed it quite well.
It looks like I'm in the minority on this one, so I'll do my best to clarify my earlier post.
I don't doubt the short term effectiveness of the campaign. Hell, I've seen the early numbers and they look incredible. According to Wendy Tan, the ROI has been exceptional.
What I AM concerned about, however, is a couple things:
1. How this plays out for the brand in the long run
and most importantly
2. How this affects Twitter as a communications medium in the long run
Here's a story I ready today regarding Twitter's reaction to the Moonfruit campaign (and the subsequent shut down of the #moonfruit hashtag.)http://www.clickz.com/3634368
Twitter knows what's going on here. What disturbs me is that the majority doesn't seem to be at all concerned about the "spaminess" of these hastag campaigns and, in turn, ignore the future implications for the communication medium as a whole. It seems like abusing the medium is secondary to twitter followers, clicks & short term success.
What I'm fearing is an oncoming torrent of marketers who look at the short term sucess of these twitter campaigns and then start rapid-firing away. The *only* way it seems for Twitter to halt, or slow the inevitable avalanche of these campaigns is to somehow monetize the commercial use of hashtags.
Here's another peice I read today that nicely sums up my sentiments on the issue: http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry4496.html
Anyway, thanks for the friendly debate :)
great!
This strategy is a wolf in sheep clothing. It is fun in the short term, and it builds up a poor reputation. It allows you to build up a short term reputation, but what happens when you stop giving away free things? People will forget you. There is nothing that can change that fact that you have to put in the leg work and engage your customers.
Like Tshombe points out, the post was mainly about the difference in cash vs. a value item campaigns.
Many people perceive receiving cash as "cheap" marketing and if they are required to perform WOM then this will be considered as "selling out your friends and followers". However, if you offer a value item, the perception changes. Now the recipients of the message, aware that you are competing for an item, understand your motive and do not hold a grudge. With this understanding, they will probably perform the same WOM action and increase the effectiveness.
Giving out cash is despised as it reminds us of pyramid schemes where the early entry crowd profit and all the rest just suffer from the noise. Giving away an item to a friend further up in the chain will be considered a benefit to them and we will support their effort, as friends, to gain the value item.
The argument regarding the abuse of marketing channels is a legitimate one, and I don’t want to repeat the pros and cons of it, just to say that short-term buzz is effective only if you have a long-term commitment in place.
excellent
