Transparency
“Do Consumers Care About Online Privacy?”
One might think that’s an obvious “yes,” but not necessarily, according to Advertising Age. In fact, there’s a good deal of confusion as to what online privacy actually means.
“Consumers fundamentally misunderstand the rules of the marketplace,” said Chris Hoofnagle, senior staff attorney at the Samuelson Clinic at UC-Berkley’s Boalt School of Law, addressing a perceived apathy toward the subject. He cites studies in which up to 75% of consumers think as long as a site has a privacy policy it means it won’t share data with third parties. “They equate the presence of the policy with substantive privacy rules.”
How does this apply to your business? First of all, make your privacy statement clear and concise, e.g., “We value your privacy,” “We will not share your personal information — ever.” It’s also important that the trustmarks you use actually mean something to the customer (Bryan recently showed BizRate as an example).
Still, the need for brands to inspire confidence online is as vital as ever. (You may have noticed we’ve been covering trust issues quite a bit lately.) The latest evidence: McAfee’s plan to acquire ScanAlert for $51 million in cash.
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
How Start-Ups Can Build Effective “About Us” Pages
Since writing on “about us” pages a few months back, I’ve received several inquiries like this one:
Thank you for a very valuable information on the “About Us” page, good examples.
How about new companies or companies that are being created? Customers are skeptical to engage with new companies. What would be your advice in terms of what is the best content to put in it, what to highlight, if you do not have history and you are staring from the “garage” location?
What do you do as a start-up? What do you do if you don’t have a laundry list of credentials and an extensive track record?
Continue reading my column on ClickZ…
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Can Wal-Mart’s Facebook Campaign Survive Transparency?
It all seemed so innocent at first. A few weeks ago, when Wal-Mart announced it would market to college students on Facebook, the idea seemed simple enough: Allow students to use their Roommate Style Match group (Facebook subscription required) so they could coordinate their dorm room shopping. Now that it’s been up for awhile, though, Wal-Mart’s getting grilled by detractors.
BusinessWeek’s Burt Helm noticed this gem of a Facebook comment:
“do people realize WHY prices are so low at Wal-Mart? cause THEY DO NO PAY LIVING WAGES to employees in America and THEIR CHINESE FACTORIES ARE BASICALLY SLAVERY.
WAL-MART IS HATEFUL AND IS A BLIGHT ON AMERICA.
Facebook should CUT ALL ITS TIES to Wal-Mart. GET WALMART OFF FACEBOOK!”
To which Helm adds:
I actually think it’s a good call on Wal-Mart’s part not to censor the page or take it down. This discussion is inevitable. And looking at the feed of comments now, it has actually spurred a pretty healthy bull session on Wal-Mart’s role in the U.S., with several students coming out in favor of the retailing giant. I think it’s smart PR for Wal-Mart to host this discussion, even it was totally inadvertent.
The retail giant seems happy to stay on the sidelines for now. Jami Arms, a spokesperson from Wal-Mart told Reuters:
“We recognize that we are facilitating a live conversation, and we know that in any conversation, especially one happening online, there will be both supporters and detractors” […]
Still, PodTech’s Jeremiah Owyang thinks they should be more proactive:
[…] I highly recommend that Wal-Mart consider trying a community strategy using a transparent and authentic blog or video blog series that addresses the very brand issues that they are getting slammed on. I took at look online for a “Walmart blog” and didn’t see any from the company, why is this? It’s going to be very difficult to try a community marketing strategy with eCommerce hooks without first addressing the brand detractors.
Now I’m confused. How exactly could a blog be more transparent than this Frontline documentary on Wal-Mart? Could any company’s self-reflecting stab at “citizen journalism” be more transparent than that of objective, professional journalists?
Linking to our recent discussion on transparency, Copyblogger’s Brian Clark wonders if we really want authenticity in the first place:
[…] Some so-called business blogging experts think “keeping it real” is rule number one, even when it’s completely inappropriate.
The secret to effective marketing is to focus on the needs of others, rather than our own egocentric need to “authentically” express whatever we’re feeling at the moment. We teach that to our children, and yet we’re to believe it doesn’t apply to social media?
Where do we draw the line with transparency and authenticity when what people really want is a story that adds value to their lives? What if no one likes the real you?
It’s a good question. Wal-Mart brings a welcome dose of transparency in terms of product reviews, but the documentary finds their executives coming off as rigid ideologues who readily justify an NSA-style employee spying program, its contribution to America’s vast trade deficit with China, reports of bullying manufacturers, and a creative definition of the phrase “living wage” in terms of the company’s commitment to saving consumers money and increasing “shareholder value”.
Fortunately for Wal-Mart, its loudest critics don’t seem to shop there. It’s a good thing they can take the heat; they’ll need that attitude in order to stay on Facebook.
Has the brand people love to hate finally learned when to stay quiet? What do you think? Should they stay or should they go?
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Wikipedia and the Wisdumb of Crowds
Last week, Wired reported on a program that allows us to see who’s editing Wikipedia. Invented by Virgil Griffith, a graduate student at Cal Tech, the WikiScanner has finally brought transparency to the encyclopedia that considers us all to be experts.
A few of my favorite revelations:
. There may be some irony here.
Nortel - Accounting scandal, what accounting scandal?? This sweeping rewrite of Nortel’s page removes all mention of the 2000-2004 accounting scandal that resulted in investigations from the RCMP and the Attorney General, the CEO being fired for cause, numerous directors being shown the door, etc.
. They replaced the critical and best-selling book “Fast Food Nation” with the more friendly book “McDonald’s: Behind the Arches”. They also removed a link to anti-McDonald’s site “McSpotlight”.
Don’t be a Web 2.0 lemming!
Sure, Wikipedia is directionally helpful. For instance, I learned that lemmings aren’t suicidal, they’re just stupid. As you may know, the rumors of these rodents jumping off cliffs en masse are overstated. If you’re looking for myth coverage, Wikipedia’s the place to be. Meanwhile, MSN’s Encarta tells us that lemmings “…swim lakes and rivers, cross mountains, and eat all vegetation in their path. Eventually, some reach the sea; attempting to swim it as if it were a river, they are drowned.”
Reminds us of the a few corporations, does it not?
It’s not surprising that governments and corporations are being outed for their Wikipedia spin-jobs; what’s surprising is that it didn’t happen sooner. How is it that Wikipedia couldn’t have done this themselves long ago?
Unfortunately, there’s no Wikipdeia entry for “wikiality,” one of Stephen Colbert’s invented words. Still, this video can illustrate the true PR costs of “wikilobbying”.
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Do You Believe Mattel’s CEO?
Nothing tells you more about a company than how it handles a crisis.
Recently, Mattel (MAT) has had two product recalls; one for toys with lead paint, and another for toys with powerful small magnets.
Mattel chose the usual large company route: Have your CEO do a public apology, looking serious and sincere, outlining the problem and emphasizing the steps you’re taking to deal with it.
Has this approach ever worked? I’m not being cynical here, I really want to know.
Here’s why, in this case, I don’t think it worked.
It’s obviously a highly rehearsed and planned speech from CEO Robert Eckert, in a suit, sitting in a fake environment. Everything about this video screams planned, rehearsed, fake — right down to his choreographed hand movements. Maybe it’s just me, but when he says, “I’m just as upset and disappointed as anyone,” I cringe.
I’m thinking, “Yeah, because of all the money you’re gonna lose.”
Let’s put ourselves in a parent’s shoes. More specifically, let’s put ourselves in a mother’s shoes. (Dads are just as concerned but, in my marketing to women research, I’ve learned a whole lot about moms, so I’m going to focus on them.) She’s thinking, “My child may have been exposed to something that could possibly harm him. I’m not ‘disappointed’. I’m scared. I’m angry. I am downright pissed.”
“Upset”. Good word. “Disappointed”. Not so much. The word “disappointed” may work for the lawyers, but not for moms.
What’s the purpose of this video? Is it designed for shareholders and investors? Mattel is taking out ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and USA Today. This choice of WSJ and NY Times makes me wonder if this PR effort is indeed aimed at investors. If so, I would give the video higher grades.
But if this video is aimed at parents/mothers — “consumers” in corporate speak — then it could be greatly improved. Here’s how:
- Lose the suit. The CEO looks too formal. Who are you trying to impress? Do you feel more powerful in a suit? Come down to a more believable level. Come down to my level. (I understand that for investors the CEO needs to look serious and businesslike, and that they might take offense if he were wearing anything less than a suit. But for moms it only ads to the perception that “he’s not one of us”.)
- Get rid of the fake background. It’s too sterile. You look like a talking head on a set, not a real person.
- Use words that parents are using, not corporate double-speak. You build rapport by making people feel you’re like them; by speaking in their language. Almost nothing about this performance — and it does come across as a performance — makes me think this CEO is like me. Sure, he opens with “I’m a parent of 4,” but he looks and sounds like a CEO, not a parent. How much more effective would it be if he said, “I’m a dad with 4 kids.” And for another example, look at this phrase: “Nothing is more important than the safety and wellbeing of children.” How much more powerful would this be if he had said “your children” or “our children” or even “our kids.”
Moms have particularly strong B.S. detectors. I’m not saying this CEO is insincere, but if he wants consumers or moms to believe in his company, they first must believe in him. I’ll let moms and dads speak for themselves as to whether this video achieved that goal.
What do you think? Can Mattel withstand transparency?
Related Posts:
Written by:Holly Buchanan
Not Everyone Can Withstand Transparency
Corporate transparency is fickle these days. Of course, companies are still expected to be transparent with shareholders. But interactive media have changed the game, or at least distorted it. The mass marketing days are over and, today, public relations happens in real time.
In a mass market world, it’s easy to hide behind corporate spin because, hey, everyone’s doing it. In a world driven by interactive media and niche markets, though, not everyone can withstand transparency.
The Buzz Bin’s Geoff Livingston wrote a piece called “Astroturfing on the Dark Side of the Moon,” highlighting a few cases of corporate blogging-gone-wrong and the ongoing debate over what should be considered “astroturfing” (define). The article shows how the lines of corporate transparency are now gossamer-thin.
But why? Have business ethics become blurry and situational?
Whether they like it or not, companies are being thrown into a world of transparency. Perhaps what we’re witnessing in these cases of so-called “astroturfing” isn’t so much a lack of personal ethics as it is the systemic floundering of those whose product, business model, policies and/or public relations channels can’t withstand transparency.
I asked a few of our favorite blogging, PR, and word-of-mouth experts to share some thoughts on transparency*. David Meerman Scott, author of The New Rules of Marketing and PR, was first to respond…
I think it is much better for organizations to establish policies about all communications (including verbal communication, e-mail, participation in chat rooms, and the like) rather than to focus on a new medium (blogs). I feel strongly that a company can and should set policy about sexual harassment, disparaging the competition, and revealing company secrets, but there’s no reason to have different policies for different media, such as blogs.All sorts of unethical practices go on in the blogosphere, and you must be certain to hold yourself and your organization accountable for your actions as a blogger. Some organizations have gotten caught using unethical practices on their blogs and have done great harm to their corporate reputations. Some things I feel strongly about:
Transparency — You should never pretend to be someone you are not. For example, don’t use another name to submit a comment on any blog (your own or somebody else’s), and don’t create a blog that talks about your company without disclosing that someone from your company is behind it.
Privacy — Unless you’ve been given permission, don’t blog about something that was disclosed to you. For example, don’t post material from an e-mail someone sent you unless you have permission.
Disclosure — It is important to disclose anything that people might consider a conflict of interest in a blog post. For example, if I write in my blog about a product from a company that is one of my consulting clients, I put a sentence at the end disclosing my relationship with the company.
Truthfulness — Don’t lie. For example, never make up a customer story just because it makes good blog content.
Andy Sernovitz, author of Word of Mouth Marketing: How Smart Companies Get People Talking, kept it even simpler with this response via smartphone:
Word of mouth/blog ethics aren’t hard. It’s about:
1. Always being truthful
2. Common sense
3. Good taste
Blogger extraordinaire Chris Garrett concurs, insisting that:
If you keep your customer or audience needs in mind and have the best intentions, the rest ought to follow quite naturally. People mainly get into trouble when their intention is to hide or deceive.
Maybe the lines aren’t blurring because our ethics are becoming more situational; they only appear situational because we’re being forced to respond in the moment. In such an environment, the more PR “strategy” one has, the more phony they appear. People need to separate the argument about “what is ethical” from “what is stupid or ill-advised”.
There are no shades of transparency. Transparency cannot be opaque to any degree, regardless of how we spin it. Customers are simply too smart, and even the slow ones among us have the power of Google at their fingertips. (Try hiding from that!) Transparency isn’t about sharing trade secrets, it’s about engaging with people who have opinions about your brand. Treat your corporate blog like an infomercial and it will fail.
What those who quote Marshall McLuhan without having read him may not realize that “the medium is the message” was a play on words. It’s a few puns deep, actually.
First, McLuhan was insisting that the medium was the “mess-age”; that media, particularly new media, make a mess of the age in which they emerge. His secondary, lesser-known pun was that “the medium is the massage“; that emerging media, although poorly understood, have a massaging, drug-like affect on how we perceive, process, and collectively distort information. For McLuhan, television, the “new media” of his day, was the massage of the mass-age. Along with the message, the massage is explained in McLuhan’s concise book. The thing is, we no longer live in the mass age.
Just before he died, McLuhan looked beyond the mass age to what he called The Global Village. In this last book, he not only foreshadowed the likes of blogging and Facebook, but he assures us that we wouldn’t understand the “global village” once we arrived.
Meanwhile, back in today’s global “Web 2.0″ village, McLuhan remains best known for his cameo in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall. The good news for McLuhan, though, is that not only does the YouTube clip prove that the “global village” exists, it gives an example of someone who can’t withstand transparency.
[*Author’s Note: I’ll update this article as other bloggers respond. Stay tuned… ]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Say What You Will About Wal-Mart — Seriously
Retail giant Wal-Mart announced today that it will allow customer reviews on Walmart.com for the first time. The move may be a small step e-commerce, but it’s a giant leap for corporate transparency and the growing popularity of word-of-mouth marketing.
The New York Times (Reuters) has the scoop:
[…] Chief Marketing Officer Cathy Halligan said in an interview the retailer decided to launch the new feature quickly following a three-week testing phase in which it received more than twice the number of reviews it was expecting.
“It is the No. 1 customer-requested feature,” she said of reviews and ratings.
. . . “We are not planning any specific sales acceleration as a result of launching this feature,” Halligan said. “But one could expect that providing our customers with the No. 1 requested feature and something that connects 130 million people to each other has got to accrue benefits.”
For more on the benefits to both business and customer, Andy Sernovitz’s blog has an appropriately biased — and spot-on — account of why this is a great day for Word-of-Mouth.
(Congratulations to Bazaarvoice on liberating the world’s largest retailer for its customers!)
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Blogging: Who Makes Up the Rules?
Our friend Debbie Weil, author of The Corporate Blogging Book, writes that she wants to “…crawl under a rock and pretend I’ve never heard of blogging.” Why is she so distressed?
Debbie didn’t do anything wrong. She was trying to help out GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), her client, by emailing some colleagues and encouraging them to comment on their alliConnect blog. I personally think Glaxo’s moderated blog about an over-the-counter diet drug doesn’t deserve any attention. It would be a dreadful challenge to use these good ideas on how to promote the blog using word-of-mouth alone.
Who makes up these blogging rules?
Earlier this week, we heard from the ready-to-make-rules about anything he personally dislikes “Uncle” Jakob Nielsen, and now we hear whining from all those former hall monitors about how Debbie Weil helps her clients.
Let’s encourage transparency across the board — but, please, let’s not make up a bunch of stupid rules. Let’s allow people to decide with their RSS (define) readers and browsers if they’re interested in what a blog has to say.
Related Posts:
Written by:Jeffrey Eisenberg
What’s The Value Of A Brand?
Hat tip to John Moore who pointed out a recent BusinessWeek article about the new science of reputation management.
A company’s reputation for being able to deliver growth, attract top talent, and avoid ethical mishaps can account for much of the 30%-to-70% gap between the book value of most companies and their market capitalizations. Reputation is a big reason Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) trades at a much higher price-earnings ratio than Pfizer (PFE ), Procter & Gamble (PG ) than Unilever (UN ), and Exxon Mobil (XOM ) than Royal Dutch Shell (RDS ). And while the value of a reputation is vastly less tangible than property, revenue, or cash, more experts are arguing it is possible not only to quantify it but even to predict how image changes in specific areas will harm or hurt the share price.
The article illustrates the value of telling your brand’s story clearly and often. Too many companies keep this information hidden.
How effectively are you telling your stories in this era of transparency? Do you know when you’re telling the right story, from the right angle?
In an upcoming post, I’ll share with you what’s involved in creating a great story. In the meantime, you can get started by developing some characters.
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Why Testimonials Do (and Don’t) Work
Testimonials work really well.
Testimonials don’t work at all.
No, I’m NOT suffering from some sort of personality disorder (though some might disagree). There are times when testimonials are incredibly powerful, and times when they might actually hurt you.
Testimonials hurt you when people don’t think they’re real. Anything that sounds vague or cliché can smack of insincerity.
Three traits of strong testimonials…
#1 - They’re Specific.
Vague testimonials don’t really tell the customer anything.
A vague testimonial reads like: “I was very satisfied with your hotel’s service.” “Your course was great. Thanks!” “I got great results.” “Quality tech support.” “I really enjoy your product.”
Specific testimonials say things like: “I was impressed by the 24-hour concierge service, especially when they found an all-night printer at 3 am. ” “I increased the number of sales leads from 2 per month to 10 per week.” “The section in your course about negotiating with stubborn sellers was invaluable.” “Tech support spoke to me in plain English and isolated the problem in 90 seconds.”Specific testimonials work for two reasons: First, they sound more credible. Second, they promote a specific benefit or address a question that may help persuade potential buyers.
#2 - They Overcome Objections.
That’s right. Use testimonials that talk about objections. Some companies are afraid of these kinds of testimonials, yet they can be the most powerful tool you have. Testimonials from skeptics stand out because they sound credible. And by addressing and voicing what many perspective customers may be feeling, these testimonials are powerful persuaders.
Testimonial that address objections sound like: “I’ve been in property investing for 7 years. I didn’t think there was anything in this course I didn’t already know. But, ultimately, I was surprised to learn valuable techniques I’d never considered before.” “Taking an online course felt really impersonal to me. I was afraid I’d miss the in-person interaction. What I found, though, was that the format was incredibly interactive. I’ve even made some friends in my study group. We phone and IM, which helps since we’re facing similar challenges. It’s great!”
#3 - They’re Well-Placed.
Make sure the testimonial subject matter is relevant to the information around it. If you have a landing page, or a homepage where many of your visitors are early in the buying process. So, be sure to have testimonials for people who may not be ready to bite. What questions are those perspective customers asking? How are you different from the competition? How can you fill my needs?
An early-buying-process testimonial sounds like this: “I’ve tried other other gyms, but your facility was the first where I didn’t feel intimidated because I am (or, rather, I ‘was’!) overweight. I was surrounded by other women like me; not just thin women in hundred-dollar aerobics outfits.”
Product pages, or other pages where your customers come later in the buying process, so provide testimonials relevant to their ready-to-buy questions. what happens if I don’t like it? Is it worth the money? What plan is right for me?
A late-stage, I’m-ready-to-buy testimonial sounds like this: “When I tried on the shoes, they were too narrow. So I simply filled out the return form, used the pre-printed shipping label, and sent them back. The new shoes arrived 3 days later. What a quick turnaround, and it didn’t cost me a cent!”
To recap:
- Be specific. Use testimonials that talk about specific benefits or personal situations. Avoid vague testimonials.
- Overcome objections. Use testimonials that bring up objections, where customers admit being skeptical. These are the most powerful testimonials out there.
- Context is everything. Make sure your testimonials address the questions your customers are asking at various stages of the buying process. (If your customer data’s unclear, just ask your sales/business development people. They can recite common questions in unison.)
Just remember, the only thing better than saying the right thing at the right time is when your customers do it for you–and better.
[Special thanks to Sean D’Souza at Psychotactics for his infinite wisdom on testimonials and all things persuasion, and to Marketing Experiments for their suggestions on testimonial placement.]
UPDATE: This post is a finalist in the 2008 SEMMY Awards. If you liked it, vote now!
Related Posts:
Written by:Holly Buchanan
