Marketing Yourself Effectively

I met Peter Shankman in probably 2000. Great guy - very funny and personable. So great, in fact, that I started keeping up with what he was doing using all the normal social media channels. One of those channels is his blog.

He recently wrote a blog post on networking, and it's one of the things I find solo shops and freelancers have a really hard time fitting in or making work for them. The first issue is time. Sometimes there really isn't enough time in the day, and I suspect the issue here is time management or over-commitment. Either way, if you don't network well, and don't take the opportunity to network no matter where you are, you should read his post. And then go out and buy the book You, Inc and take some of the advice there.

So what was so great about the post? It covers the fundamentals most of us learned in kindergarten or first grade and then progressively forgot. The first is that making friends is still as easy as 'Hi! My name is Jeannie. What's your name?'. It works great in networking situations and if you can stay away from business for a few minutes you just might make a great new, engaged contact for your network. A great opener is something along the lines of what Peter suggested, using items in your surroundings to engage in conversation, or you can ask what brought the person to the event you're at. You don't want to be the person there whose sole goal is to grab everyone's card after a cursory 'Hey, how are you? What do you do? I do this' approach. Pretty basic stuff, and something you've likely known for a long time.

The second is to remember to have fun. Peter just considers himself fortunate to be where he is in life, with everything he's accomplished. I know he works harder than most of the people I know, but it's kind of fun to read about how amazed he is at what he has achieved. Making new friends and attending networking events should be fun for you - whether it's a small dose, such as an hour, or the full course, like the whole event from open to close, go and have fun. Make new friends. And then for goodness sake, follow up!

That's the last thing that seems difficult for some. It's time consuming, I know. And throwing in the personal bits to make the follow up less about you and more about the relationship, well that just takes an honest interest in what other people are doing, but it also takes a minute. Sometimes more than the minute you have to keep up with your friends and family. Meeting people at networking events and handing them your card, making a connection...it's no good if you don't follow up and maintain the connection. You may as well have never gone to the event and spent the time with family and friends. Drop them a line, follow up with a call - see how you can help each other succeed. If you really had a good feeling about the person you met, it's nice to develop that kind of referral friendship. It pays dividends. Just look at what Peter has done over the years, just be being a great guy and knowing how to market himself effectively.

Does Forever 21 Have a PR Crisis, or a Communication Blip?

It's pretty easy to find yourself in the center of a social media firestorm these days. Between Bustle and the latest Swifties wrath, you'd think the Forever 21 memo would have slid right through. Wishful thinking.

It's pretty bad when greed, religion and politics all show up as the result of one communication. And by all accounts, the corp comm that went out was a fairly standard memo. That was before it was leaked and linked to Obamacare and underemployment. So was there a way to mitigate the message so the workers affected wouldn't lose their healthcare, and it wouldn't look so much like Forever 21 was just trying to save a buck or two?

Not helpful is the information coming out afterwards that in addition to downgrading employees from full time to part time, Forever 21 was projected to make $4 billion in 2012. HuffPo covered the story here. As I read the coverage, it became less about religion and more about a cost cutting move to save the company some money. Having read Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, I was a little dismayed to discover that at the base of the move is greed. I do wonder whether it will impact their sales or their ability to hire part time teenagers (their target market).

I suspect the parents will care more than the teenagers about Forever 21's decision. And as a general rule, parents control spending, and for those kids who have access to unlimited money, I don't think they are in the Forever 21 target market. So let's take a look at the target market: teenagers 14-18 and probably young adults 19-24. Let's go out on a limb and decide the teenagers income is low, and the parents probably make between $50-75K, own a home and have more than one child. The young adults are working a little bit while in school and after school are looking at about $30-50K (if they can find a job).

Funnily enough, I think Forever 21's target markets are also probably working there as part time employees to make a little money to supplement their income, and more importantly, to get the clothing discount. If staying current with fashion or shopping regularly is important to you, as I suspect it is to the Forever 21 target markets, then that discount is much more important than working full time, Obamacare or pretty much anything else.

Add to the argument that the target markets don't likely need insurance, since they are either covered by their parents or by their first job, and the impact to Forever 21 in any meaningful way is negligible. Which is a little crazy. It would seem like their target market should care more. And there are definitely members of the target market who cannot afford to shop regularly and need the full time hours to make ends meet and help themselves or their family, but realistically, these are not people/shoppers Forever 21 is counting on to make $4 billion in profits.

So, unfortunately, at the end of the day, I think Forever 21 is suffering the backlash of a communication blip, and if they don't come right out and say something incredibly offensive they should be okay, and long forgotten by Labor Day.

The Bustle Mess: Where the Communication Failed

Not to belabor the point, but...written communication is much different than interpersonal communication. I read an article today at Business Insider about Bryan Goldberg's apology. What struck me most was what the writer had to say about the very public, very embarrassing, launch.

The writer described the attributes confidence, wit and smarts and applied the to Goldberg. The best way to find out things like that is to listen to someone speak in a conversational setting. Then the listener can hear the inflection of the voice, watch the non-verbal communication, like facial expression, and participate in the verbal cues of conversation, like laughter, instead of the written LOL.

It's possible Goldberg thought his written words were pithy, smart and conveyed the idea that got him the VC funding. Unfortunately for him, sarcasm and wit don't necessarily translate to paper in the same way as an interview might have. And he was crucified for it. Enter the apology. Offending your peers and your target market can kill a business, and in the majority of cases one would think that will happen to Bustle. That remains to be seen.

The second part of Goldberg's apology dealt with dissing the entire group of women's publications, online and offline. I know that if I had provided the marketing analysis of the competitive landscape for Bustle and then read the launch materials, I would have been very confused. His assertion that Vogue writers don't own part of their company came across and snarky and elitist when I read it, and he did apologize for attacking his competitors.

The key issue here is whether the written communication is now something one can trust. It's easy to correct a mistake with a cracker jack crises PR team, and, call me jaded, but after having their names splashed all over the internet as the idiot VC's who supported a guy who came off as the world's biggest misogynist jerk, I'm sure somebody made a call or two to rectify the situation and salvage some hope of getting their money back. But loss of trust is a lot to overcome, for me or for anyone else.

Bustle

I must confess. I read a lot of interesting articles I wouldn't normally otherwise because my friends post them on Facebook. I do read news, but I tend to focus on things that interest me, and that sometimes precludes items my friends find. They found an interesting article yesterday about a new online magazine called Bustle, and I spent a good hour trying to figure out whether the CEO believes any press is good press or he's just terribly misguided.

By-passing the fact that anyone under 30, maybe even 40, have no idea that a bustle is an undergarment worn by women during time periods requiring them to wear a dress with lift in the back every day (1910?). In fact, the first time many women hear about a bustle these days is when they go wedding dress shopping. Setting that aside and thinking maybe the founder was thinking hustle and bustle and it was already taken, I continued to read several articles implying he's a misogynist who should have his head examined.

One such article was on Slate, who I think covered the topic fairly well - new magazine exclusively addressing the fact that women like to read world news and celebrity gossip in the same sitting (HuffPo, anyone?) that was the only one of its' kind. Slate pulled out at least 15 feminist focused online magazines that do exactly the same thing as Bustle, and they launched 5-10 years ago. So what about this is new, or different for that matter? And why is this guy so impressed with himself and his product?

Bryan Goldberg founded the Bleacher Report, which covers sports news I assume he knows well and has an interest in. Clearly he has an interest in women, but I think he might be going about communicating that in a way designed to irritate and anger the very feminist women he is attempting to attract to his site. In fact, of all the sites I looked at yesterday, I never once went to Bustle to figure out if I'd even read it. I was too busy trying to figure out if, with the mountains of free time I have, the guy was enough of a jackass that I wouldn't want to support it.

Back to the news. When Forbes immediately publishes an article about whether Bustle just launched a $6.5 million dollar bust, you have to think - who gave this guy $6.5 million for this idea? Did it sound different when he pitched it? If it did, why didn't he use that pitch with the media? For most people, venture funding is hard to come by, and your idea is dissected before they agree to give money. I guess not in this case. Unless he managed to resurrect some really rich guys from oh, say, 1900 who had no idea women could write, much less be interested and understand the concepts of politics and fashion all in the same sitting.

CBC also posted something terribly funny and refreshingly balanced on the topic. They used the Twittersphere response to illustrate the backlash, and I learned a new word (mansplaining). The Globe & Mail also commented, and referred readers to a hilarious on-point piece at the Medium, which made me laugh out loud. The piece on Medium did something no other piece did, though - identified the VC's that ponied up the $6.5 mil.

By investing in what has become a laughingstock of a man's view of feminism and feminist issues that may as well have come from Elizabethan England and embarrassingly occurred yesterday, I have to wonder what they are communicating themselves. Do they believe all the nonsense Goldberg is spouting? Do they view their female customers the same way he does?

There were many more articles, written worldwide, about how badly the idea of Bustle has been communicated to the very people they view as their target market. The point here is communication matters. What you communicate directly (Bustle) or indirectly (Social+Capital Partnership, Time Warner Investment, Google Ventures, 500 Startups and Rothenberg Ventures), people listen and your target market develops perceptions about who you are.

Social Media on a Solo Mission

Businesses come in many different forms, and they all address the moving pieces of marketing differently. Large corporations tend to rely on large marketing departments and medium sized businesses either farm it out or work with a smaller marketing department that's frequently also part sales. So what about the solo entrepreneur or the small business who maybe doesn't do a lot of marketing because they are more focused on word of mouth or referral only?

I can't tell you how many solos I've run into recently who have decided that part of their job is to tackle social media. My advice, just like handling PR, is hand that off to a professional. It's not their job to know how to do everything, it's their job to know how to manage based on results. Results are often referred to as ROI, or return on investment. So you sit down with a professional, one who keeps up with the way Google measures analytics, one who understands what sending a newsletter will do for you, what the content calendar is and what to expect from said newsletter, and that not every social media opportunity is necessarily appropriate for your business, and you work out a plan.

It's a full time job for most marketing professionals to keep up with everything, it's even more important to assess what you want from social media before you spend the time and resources on it, and it's certainly not something a jewelry designer should have to keep up with in addition to creating their vision and learning new techniques. For instance, Polyvore is a great social tool for designers, stylists and other professionals in fashion, but not great for someone in the music industry. It's that type of knowledge the solo who decides social media is 'easy' and something the should 'handle on their own' misses out on.

And then there's the time factor. It takes time to manage social media, much less build a lead generation campaign. The same solos I meet who tell me they should be able to manage this on their own, are the same ones whose favorite response to just about everything is 'I'm just so busy'. So yes, I am mystified about the goals and expectations they have, and conversely, I wonder if these are the same people who tell everyone they know that they 'tried social media' and it 'just didn't work for them'.

So my advice, if you are a solo business owner or have less than say, twenty employees, budget for a marketing plan, including social media. Go out and have it professionally done. When you get it, pay the bill, read the plan, and then assign elements of the plan a priority based on what the plan estimates the ROI is, and what you can reasonably do yourself or have a member of your staff do. Keep track of how well you managed to complete the elements of the plan and evaluate at the end of the year. I think you'll be surprised at how much time and dedication it takes, and what the benefits were.

Is Traditional Marketing Dead?

That's what an article I read in the Harvard Business Review states. While I agree that marketing is certainly changing, and my DVR allows me to fast forward through many commercials, unless I need five minutes to take the dog out or something, I don't think it's quite dead yet. I've been flipping past advertisements in magazines for years, and yet, those magazines still sell advertising.

And the funniest part of the whole blog post was where the author pointed out that "National Instruments used an especially creative approach with its customer influencers, who were mid-level IT managers at the companies they did business with. NI engaged with them by providing powerful research and financial proof points they could take to senior management, showing that NI solutions were creating strategic benefits. That got NI into the C-suite. It also increased the reputation of the mid-level advocates, who were seen as strategic thinkers bringing new ideas to senior management." I'd really like to know who the author thought generated the powerful research and financial proof points. It certainly wasn't the sales team, not that they couldn't do it. It was the marketing team, and that's what they do.

So, no, marketing isn't dead. Any piece of paper you are handed at a tradeshow, any dvd, handout, slide presentation, and any number of things mailed to your home, are created by a marketing department somewhere, even if the marketing department is just one person. Website design? Marketing. The copy on your website? Hopefully marketing, and someone who can spell without using spell check. That white paper the C-level suite wanted so they could showcase themselves as experts in their field? Definitely marketing.

I do agree with one point the author made, and that is the fact that marketing ROI has many different calculations related to determining how successful a campaign is or was, and these calculations don't necessarily translate well to any accounting balance sheet or any other generally accepted financial metric used to calculate monetary value. The old marketing rule of thumb is that if you have a system in place to track where your customers are coming from, you can tell which campaigns work, and which ones don't. If there isn't a system in place, then yes, marketing is likely just a crapshoot.

It's getting easier and easier to track incoming customers, however, and how they came to you. Google Analytics will tell you were your blog and website readers are coming from, for instance, and they'll even tell you the keywords used to find you. And that's just one tool. I've used Salesforce.com in the past, and it's pretty easy to tell how the customer got to you, and then relay that to the sales rep so they know, too. It's teamwork, and when it works between the marketing department and the sales department, company sales are probably showing organic and inorganic growth.

Marketing isn't dead yet, and funnily enough, neither is print, despite the last ten years of everyone saying it is.

Some Days It's Better If You Don't Speak to Others

I'm having one of those days today. I vented to my husband, and picked up a client call I probably shouldn't have. Only because I was frustrated and she uses the phrase 'I don't think that's unreasonable, do you?'. The tactful answer is no, of course it's not unreasonable for you to not check your email, and call 18 times a day to check on the response, tell me the deadline is tomorrow, and you think that networking requires too much energy. On days when you shouldn't speak to others, otherwise known as #ineedavacation, the answer is I sent the email, and yes, I get that your business is important to you, but you are focusing on this one thing today, which is already completed and you have already accepted and approved, and asking about several others when we haven't scheduled a meeting even to discuss them and what you think the ROI is.

See the difference? Tact, and no tact. One is fully rested and in a positive frame of mind, and the other is #ineedavacation. There's no harm in recognizing that some times it's just not a good day to speak to others. Knowing who you are and how you communicate will help you in your day-to-day relationships. Don't get me wrong, there are some days and some situations you won't be able to control, and in those cases it may be better to follow Abe Lincoln's advice: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

In a business environment, it's hard to do that. In meetings, you're called upon for your opinion, and remaining silent is disadvantageous to your mission or goal. In the many corporate meetings I have attended, however, it's easy enough if it's not a strategic meeting to jot down thoughts and questions, give them some thought and set them aside for a couple of hours, and then discuss them via email. The method may be a little delayed, but it gives you the opportunity to figure out if you need a vacation or can speak intelligently without allowing the frustration to come shining on through.

And I do hope you have minimal days where you are in the #ineedavacation frame of mind.