via Horia Varlan (Creative Commons 2.0)

We think that Q&A is a natural extension of social search and will become a permanent part of the social media landscape. We think Q&A is particularly relevant to social shopping. The process that now begins with a shopper’s review or recommendation can just as easily begin with another shopper’s request for information. Like writing reviews, answering questions is a way for shoppers to provide value, demonstrate expertise and gain influence. Of course, we at Zavee are continuing to develop and refine our own social search capabilities, so you can look forward to exciting new features over the next several months.

The Zavee takeaway:

• Social Q&A is suddenly hot, but that doesn’t make it a fad.
• Q&A is a natural extension of the social shopping feature set.
• Look for exciting new social search features coming soon from Zavee.

HootSuite logo

The key to making Twitter easier and more efficient is to use one of the free third party Twitter management tools instead of Twitter’s own site. HootSuite and TweetDeck let you do two things that can save a lot of time: manage multiple searches and cross-post into multiple Social Media streams.

In a previous post we blogged about four ways that local businesses can use Twitter. Some involve more time and attention than others. First, we suggested using Twitter as a listening post, gathering information from other users. The net you cast can be as wide or narrow as you want. Use your Twitter manager to set up searches for your industry, competitors, community, etc. If you can’t do all of these, establish some priorities and set up fewer searches. Checking them should only take a few minutes a day.

Second, we discussed using Twitter to build your brand. This is the most time-consuming aspect of making Twitter work, and while we think it’s worth the time not everyone will agree. This is where cross-posting can come in handy. You can use your Twitter manager to publish your Facebook posts as tweets – same content, two streams. You can do the same with blog posts (every Zavee Thinking post is automatically tweeted as soon as it’s published). Cross-posting isn’t a substitute for frequent tweeting, but it’s a reasonable compromise between committing to a major brand-building campaign on Twitter and ignoring your brand altogether.

Third, we pointed out how Twitter can generate leads. There is a passive and an active component to using Twitter this way. The passive part involves setting up searches for keywords that potential customers are likely to use when tweeting. The active part involves tweeting with those same keywords. Not enough time to do both? Just set up and monitor the searches and see how that works. You may need to adjust the search terms but that still should take less time than actively tweeting to gain leads. As you get better at finding potential customers on Twitter, however, don’t be surprised if you find yourself spending more time building those relationships online.

Finally, we recommended using Twitter as a customer service channel. At a minimum, you should use your Twitter manager to display mentions of your business on Twitter. Whether and how you respond to tweets that mention your business is up to you, but there is no reason not to see what people tweet about you.

We think that this minimalist approach to Twitter is a good way to start, especially if you don’t think you have a lot of time for Twitter. We also think it’s likely that you will ramp up your Twitter strategy as you gain experience with the medium. Take an hour or two on a weekend afternoon to get familiar with one of the Twitter management applications and play around with both searches and cross-posting. Let the technology do some of the work and you can get value out of Twitter without putting in more time than you want.

The Zavee takeaway:

• Use a third party Twitter manager for multiple searches and to publish Facebook posts on Twitter (and vice versa).
• An active tweeting strategy takes more time than reading relevant tweets, so if time is an issue focus on using Twitter passively – at least for now.
• Don’t be surprised if you find yourself spending more time on Twitter than you expected – not because it wastes your time but because it builds your business.

The consensus choice seems to be Facebook, and it’s easy to see why. This post will discuss some of Facebook’s advantages for business. Next week we will talk about how businesses that use Facebook can add Twitter to the mix without a major incremental time commitment.

Michael Stelzner of Social Media Examiner provides three big reasons for committing to Facebook: Facebook is communal in ways other Social Media are not; Facebook pulls people to its site often – Stelzner says it’s getting to be as frequent as checking email; and Facebook has tools that reveal “social proof”. Each of this points deserves some explanation.

• Group discussions. Stelzner says that Twitter doesn’t lend itself to group discussions – it’s mostly a one-to-many medium. He’s right that Facebook has more sophisticated tools for leveraging groups, but Twitter users have figured out how to manage group discussions. These discussions happen in real time, so they can be very fast, lively and loose. I have participated in a weekly discussion relating to bargains and discounts called “#dealchat” that has been a useful branding opportunity for Zavee and a lot of fun for me. Facebook is communal in a different way: communities are stickier, while they tend to be more ad hoc on Twitter.
• Frequency. Facebook keeps coming up with new features that keep users coming back. And with both instant message (chat) and direct message (mail) features, users don’t even need email to connect with other Facebook users. However, some Twitter users post very frequently, and if your followers include these very active users Facebook’s frequency advantage isn’t quite as overwhelming.
• Social proof. Social proof is a term coined by the psychologist Robert Cialdini to describe the tendency of people to conform their behavior to the behavior of others. Facebook’s concept of “liking” leverages this principle to enable businesses to influence current and prospective customers. If you “like” Zavee (and I hope you do) your Facebook friends will see that and will tend to follow your lead. When we decided to push for more fans on Facebook this principle helped us grow from fewer than 100 fans to more than 600 in about a month. On Twitter social proof is structured very differently. Influence is determined in part by the number of followers a user has and by the number of tweets. Facebook is more egalitarian.

There is no question that Facebook requires time, both initially and ongoing. Consultants can help you establish your Facebook presence and can guide you in maintaining and growing it – this is a good one based in Delray Beach – but Social Media is never “fire and forget”.  If you want to use Facebook as a sales channel it’s vital to grow your fan base. This means updating frequently with new content and responding to fan posts promptly. There are also some more technical aspects of Facebook that are worth learning about – reading the All Facebook blog is a good way to do that. Poke around Facebook to see what other companies are doing. But the first step, of course, is to make the commitment.

The Zavee takeaway:

• You don’t really have to choose – see next week’s post – but if you want to choose choose Facebook.
• Some of Facebook’s features, such as “liking”, are ideal for businesses. Twitter is very different but also is great for business.
• Social Media only works if you make the commitment and invest the time and effort.

via Rusty Boxcars

Adding an element of game play is one of the latest trends in marketing. At first blush, game play might not seem likely to resonate with adult consumers, but we all engage in competition in one form or another from a very early age. The viability of game play can be seen in the popularity of virtual games such as Farmville, which has almost 65 million monthly active users on Facebook. The location-based social network Foursquare also has a significant gaming element, with users earning points and “points” for specific activity.

Why should game play increase marketing effectiveness? The rationale is that encouraging the audience to participate and be rewarded helps a message earn attention in an increasingly noise-filled environment. Game play also is consistent with consumers’ increased expectation of control over the marketing messages they encounter. One result of meeting these expectations is that consumers not only pay more attention to messages presented as games, they have better recall of messages presented in games.

For small businesses, introducing game play into marketing programs can help level the playing field with competitors that have larger budgets. And it doesn’t require a lot of cost or complexity. The key is to figure out how to get the consumer involved in the message. We took a simple contest model and tweaked it by rewarding referrals. Social media platforms make game play even easier to implement. We plan to run a video contest on YouTube later this year, and the cost to us, apart from prizes, should be minimal.

The Zavee takeaway:

• Marketing messages that have an element of game play increase awareness, attention and effectiveness.
• The key to game play is user involvement, not expensive technology.
• Small businesses can and should add game play to their marketing.

via Noah Scalin

BP itself is providing a real-time video feed from a dozen cameras of the oil spewing out of the wellhead. This feed is becoming the defining imagery of the disaster, the constant flow representing for many the helplessness of the “experts” on the surface a mile above. BP also maintains a YouTube channel. BP has supplied its wellhead video feed to the web site of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which has maintained a steady flow of press releases focusing on BP. In addition to video, BP’s own site contains maps, claims forms (in English, Spanish and Vietnamese) and, of course, press releases.

BP is also trying to participate in the conversation on Social Media, but does not appear to be having much success in overcoming anti-BP sentiment. The “Boycott BP” page on Facebook is liked by more than 450,000 users, although it is unclear whether this movement will be able to affect BP’s business. On Twitter, an anti-BP impostor has amassed almost 140,000 followers while BP’s own Twitter feed is hovering at about 12,000 followers.

Much like Toyota several months ago, BP cannot expect to be portrayed other than as the villain. All BP can do is communicate openly and actively, and if its mea culpas come off as somewhat self-serving, at least the company isn’t stonewalling. The difference between the recall and the oil spill is, of course, scale. Toyota fixed the problems with its cars relatively quickly and was able to begin to rebuild its reputation. BP faces a much greater challenge, because the spill has not been contained quickly, the environmental impact may be enormous, and as an oil company BP did not start out with the kind of reputation Toyota had among the public.

So far, BP has demonstrated a certain sophistication in not trying to shut down the parody Twitter feed or the flow of satirical treatments of the company’s logo. In March, the environmental activist group Greenpeace provoked Nestle into overreacting to critical videos and Facebook postings that included modified versions of the Nestle logo. BP hasn’t fallen into that trap. Nor has it attempted to co-opt the fake Twitter account. This is a wise choice, since if trying to shut down the account would be bullying, trying to fold it into the company’s own communication strategy would seem, um, slimy.

The Zavee takeaway:

• In a bad situation, openness and honesty really are the best policies.
• The better you do at solving the problem, the easier it will be to rebuild your reputation.
• Frustrated people need to express their frustration. Don’t try to stop them.

One of the recent changes to Facebook has been a great expansion of the “Like” concept which, among other things, replaces the “Fan” concept.  Yelp and other social networks have followed suit.  At least for now, Zavee is still inviting shoppers to become “Fans” of merchants they haven’t yet shopped at and not just “Like” them.  Why?  Because we think that, on some perhaps subtle level, being a “Fan” implies a higher degree of emotional engagement than merely “Liking” someone or something.  How substantial is that difference? It’s hard to tell.  If you follow sports you might agree that there is a difference between liking a team and being a fan.  If you follow the New York Mets or the Miami Dolphins you almost certainly do.  At Zavee we are considering changing the “Fan” concept to something completely different – something that retains a high level of engagement but provides greater flexibility.  More news to follow on that new feature.

One thing we didn’t think about when we were debating “Fan” versus “Like” was whether a lower level of engagement might make it easier for users to be less than candid about what they say they “Like”.  Would people really do this?  And why?

Starbucks Barista Badge from Foursquare (via pbende)

Like much about social media, behavioral targeting presents legitimate privacy issues, and they need to be worked out. However, if advertisers lose faith in the accuracy of consumers’ self-descriptions the effectiveness of social media for marketers is likely to decrease. For small marketers who are drawn to social media marketing by, among other things, its low cost and high effectiveness, this could be a very unfortunate result.

It’s probably true, as Scoble says, that advertisers have ways to verify, at least in part, the accuracy of the things we claim we like.  But the deeper point is that the value of social media as a communications tool for users in the network depends in large part on the credibility of other users.  A user who creates a false or misleading social persona may only lose personal credibility within the network, but if enough users do the same thing the credibility of the network as a whole may suffer. A recent paper about dating sites reports that deception in profiles is rampant. The paper suggests that one reason is that users understand what makes them desirable to potential mates, and create profiles to reflect those expectations. Dating sites like to advertise their successes, but they may have become just one more system to game.

Whether Zavee stays with “Fan”, changes to “Like” or goes in a different direction altogether, the principal means by which Zavee shoppers communicate the quality of their shopping experience is by writing reviews. It takes more effort (and commitment) to write a review than to click on a button, but that very fact gives proportionately more weight to the reviews and less to a simple “Fan” designation. One safeguard we put in place expressly to improve the accuracy, timeliness and fairness of reviews is for the system to accept a review of a merchant only if the reviewer has made a Zavee purchase at that merchant within 30 days.

We hope that social networks and their users develop means to limit the influence of false social personsas, not to protect advertisers but to protect the networks themselves and to permit them to continue to deliver valuable, relevant experiences to their users.

The Zavee takeaway:

• Once it becomes trivially easy to create a social persona, that persona may itself become trivial. The problem is that those personas are taken seriously, both by advertisers and by other users.
• It’s natural to present ourselves as we’d like to be seen, but invented personas can make the the network as a whole less valuable to users who rely on other users for timely and accurate information and opinions.
• Local businesses will suffer disproportionately if social media marketing loses credibility, because it’s a particularly attractive tool for them in an environment where conventional alternatives aren’t nearly as cost-effective.

Mark Zuckerberg at f8 2010 (Washington Post photo)

In his op-ed Zuckerberg admits only to “mov[ing] too fast” to introduce privacy tools that “were too complex”. Zuckerberg goes on to say that Facebook’s intention was to provide “lots of granular [privacy] controls; but that may not have been what many of you wanted.” The ability to fine-tune privacy settings seems like a good idea given the wide variety of content available on and through Facebook. However, the risk of missing something significant and inadvertently setting a control incorrectly may well outweigh the value of granular controls.

However, Facebook’s recent history of introducing, then modifying, changes to the platform, along with its enormous size and influence in the social media space, has created an environment in which not everyone is willing to take the company’s statements at face value (the comments on almost any post on the allfacebook blog are instructive). We believe that it is in the interest of everyone in the space – users as well as networks – for Facebook to get a better handle on how to develop, introduce, explain and refine significant changes to its platform.

It is axiomatic that users should control the amount of personal information they share, and with whom. I’m not sure there is one best way to ensure this, and granularity versus ease of use for privacy controls seems to me a debate worth having. Zavee is oriented toward the ease of use end of the spectrum. We provide very clear but fairly granular choices about who gets to see what information. Furthermore, all of our privacy settings default to the most limited distribution, which minimizes the downside risk for the user.

In addition to receiving credible assurances about the privacy of their personal information, users of social networks – especially social shopping networks – need to be completely comfortable that any financial information they provide will be maintained and transmitted with the utmost security. Platforms such as Mint ask for a wide range of personal financial information since Mint’s model is to aggregate that information and make it easier for the member to use. Blippy and some other sites require registration of a credit card, as their model involves sharing purchases over a social network. Zavee also requires registration of a credit card, although unlike Blippy Zavee does not share purchase details over the network.

Zavee has a number of safeguards in place to protect users’ credit card data. First, we use Secure Sockets Layer technology from industry leader Verisign to provide secure access to the platform for every Zavee user. That’s why our URL starts with “https://” and has a distinctive green band in the address window. You can see the Verisign seal in the footer of our site and can click on it to learn more about Secure Sockets Layer technology.

Second, we only collect the minimum card data necessary for the Zavee platform to function. Anyone who has ever made a purchase online, or even over the phone, knows that the merchant is required to collect not just the the card number, but also its expiration date and security code, and sometimes the zip code for the billing address. Zavee only needs the card number, so that’s all we ask for. Anyone who improperly obtained that information would still be unable to use the card for an unauthorized transaction.

Third, Zavee itself never collects or stores any credit card information. The card registration page may look the same as other pages on the Zavee site, but it isn’t actually on our site at all. When a user registers a credit card the card number is automatically encrypted and sent directly to our data provider, a company called TSYS. TSYS is one of the largest credit card processors in the world and maintains secure credit card databases for, among others, VISA itself. Once TSYS receives and registers the card number it sends a secure, unique identifier back to Zavee. Our system is set up to use only this identifier when we process shopper transactions, so the actual card number remains within TSYS’s secure environment. Our databases are stored in a secure facility in the US, but if anything happened to the card identifiers we would simply get a copy of the relevant database from TSYS.

The Zavee takeaway:

• Overly complex privacy settings may have the effect of inadvertently decreasing actual privacy. No one should find that acceptable.
• Zavee is a simple platform from a privacy standpoint and has simple, intuitive privacy controls that are designed to minimize user risk.
• No one should ever be in doubt about the security of their financial data. Zavee uses industry best practices to protect the credit card numbers that members provide.

Rebates aren’t something most small business have to concern themselves with, and they certainly aren’t part of Zavee‘s model. Nevertheless, they are an interesting touch point between marketer and customer. How large companies handle the complex questions about rebate redemptions may have implications for how smaller businesses deal with analogous situations in which the cost of making a customer happy may be to lose her altogether.

Consider what happens with a rebate: On the one hand, the marketer is willing to pass along an amount of money that may be significant both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the purchase price. This should create a positive interaction, especially for rebates that result in, say, a mobile phone costing the customer zero out of pocket. On the other hand, a redemption process that the consumer views as overly complicated or simply unfair can leave an unpleasant aftertaste and potentially threaten a relationship that may just be beginning.

Marketers have a legitimate reason for making the redemption process at least somewhat complex: preventing fraud. Fake bar codes and forged receipts are only two of the ways companies could be preyed upon if redemption were too easy. Moreover, some non-redemptions, or “breakage”, is attributable to consumers’ own inability to follow directions, such as mailing in the rebate by the deadline. Unfortunately, it is difficult for the consumer to differentiate between redemption strategies that are designed to protect the company (and, ultimately, consumers), from strategies that are expressly intended to increase breakage. And consumers do not seem inclined to give rebate marketers the benefit of the doubt.

We haven’t seen a great deal of discussion about the potential impact on customer loyalty of rebate redemption strategies, and we think there a great many unanswered questions. Here are a few that we hope loyalty professionals will consider and talk about:

• If a consumer comes away from the rebate redemption process convinced that the marketer was attempting to (or did in fact) prevent her from redeeming her rebate, how long does that ill feeling remain? What are the variables that determine whether the consumer chalks it up to lessons learned or is lost to the marketer forever? Assuming that a given rebate redemption strategy will result in some loss of customer business, how do marketers calculate those losses in determining the ROI of a rebate program? Does the breakage always pay for the lost customers?
• Do marketers take into account the propensity for frustrated consumers to share their experiences with their social graph, e.g., on Facebook and Twitter? What steps are marketers taking to participate in the conversation with consumers, e.g., to explain how the marketer’s redemption strategy reduces fraud and keeps rebate programs alive?
• What are the fulfillment industry’s goals in structuring rebate redemptions? More specifically, is maximizing breakage an overt goal or merely an inevitable byproduct of loss prevention strategies? Is it reasonable for consumers to expect that marketers are capable of balancing their desire to prevent fraud with the customer’s desire to receive the rebate without undue difficulty or delay? Some companies have taken steps to make the redemption process easier, without changing the underlying eligibility rules, by walking consumers through the process on their Web sites. Is this the wave of the future, or do these marketers have unique reasons for making redemption easier?

At Zavee we don’t have answers to any of these questions but we hope the loyalty industry recognizes their importance and gives them the consideration they deserve.

Taglines act as a shorthand for communication about a business and its products (or a product). There is only so much a tagline can do without smart strategic thinking and powerful creative execution around it. And, of course, it has to be true to the product and the brand. BMW‘s “Ultimate driving machine” tagline has retained its power for 35 years not just because it promises exactly the experience that its buyers want, but because the company and its products deliver.

35 years and counting

I think of taglines as existing on a spectrum between purely product-oriented messages and purely brand-oriented messages. Messages about your product involve what it does and the benefits it provides. Think of Miller Lite‘s “Tastes great, less filling.” Messages about your brand involve what your company is and what it stands for. IBM’s “Building a smarter planet” is mostly if not entirely about the brand; if you weren’t familiar with the company you couldn’t tell what IBM actually does. Snapple‘s tagline, “Made from the best stuff on Earth”, combines a message about the product with a message about Snapple’s corporate values. Creating a tagline that is right for your company should involve a careful and candid analysis of how both kinds of messages fit into your overall consumer value proposition.

Two things to bear in mind when thinking about taglines are positioning within your space and differentiation vs. similarly positioned competitors. Positioning is about the different high-level choices that you make about how you want consumers see your business. The matrix of choices is different in every category and every business in the category occupies a unique point on this matrix – even when there are only limited functional differences among different companies’ products. In fact, the fewer the differences between competing products, the more important positioning can become. Car insurance is a prime example. At one end of the spectrum there are value-positioned companies like Geico with product-focused taglines (“15 minutes can save you 15% or more …”) and at the other there are premium-positioned companies like Allstate whose messages evoke more of a brand than a product promise (“Are you in good hands?”).

However, multiple businesses within a category may position themselves similarly. When this happens, businesses may try to differentiate themselves on the strength of their creative, and the tagline can be part of that. Charles Schwab‘s “Talk to Chuck” campaign is a novel approach to communicating a client-focused positioning. A more strategic approach, however, is to try to find something differentiating in either the brand or the product that had not previously been taken advantage of. A well-known example in the very crowded breakfast cereal category is Wheaties, which used its heritage with athletes to differentiate itself as “The breakfast of champions.”

Small businesses are frequently advised to focus on product benefits when creating a tagline. Is this good advice or is it too limiting? I think all businesses should use the same process: analyze your product and your brand to determine what is credible, compelling and differentiating; understand your positioning choices; and be aware of what your competitors’ messaging is. Consider Avis. Back in the 1960s, Avis was an upstart compared to industry leader Hertz. It couldn’t compete on the basis of its rental fleet, prices, or number of rental locations. Instead, Avis embraced its positioning as a challenger in a way that also communicated a key brand attribute: commitment to customer service. The Avis tagline was an instant classic: “We try harder.”

What about our tagline? Once, when we were asking ourselves what we wanted Zavee to be, someone put three words on the whiteboard: Simple. Local. Social. Ease of use, focus on local communities, and social networking are key features of our platform and we wanted to make sure that everyone at Zavee kept them top of mind. Making those three words our tagline was almost automatic. Why didn’t we focus on brand messages? In one sense, we did: our commitment to helping local communities become stronger is our most important brand attribute. But in another sense, we don’t think open social networks like Zavee really can (or should try to) create a brand other than organically through its members. I don’t see much brand communication from either Facebook or Twitter and I think they have the right approach.

The Zavee takeaway:

• A tagline is only a tagline. It isn’t your entire marketing campaign.
• Understand what sets your product and your brand apart. Understand the same things about your competitors.
• Positioning involves making difficult choices but it’s the only way to truly differentiate yourself. Focus on the differentiators when you are looking for your tagline. It’s in there somewhere.

Foursquare @SXSW

Location-based social networks such as Foursquare and Gowalla make use of the GPS capabilities of smartphones to let users communicate in real time not just what they are doing, as with Twitter, but where they are. They are growing rapidly, and for businesses they are well worth checking out.

Both networks are about two years old but have entered the mainstream only recently. Users of Foursquare “check in” at different locations to tell their friends where they are and what they are doing. Foursquare also has an element of game play that lets users collect “badges” for certain activities, such as earning a “barista” badge for checking into five Starbucks. Foursquare has a large user base that skews young and lives in cities, and has attracted a certain amount of backlash (note: strong language at link), although it has its defenders. Gowalla doesn’t depend quite as much on its game mechanics, but supports media files, such as photos, and claims to be looking for a broader (and perhaps older) demographic.

Businesses seem to have less of a “wait and see” attitude toward location-based social networks than they did toward Facebook and Twitter. It may be that, having been through this before with other Social Media outlets they simply need less persuading when it comes to location-based networks. It may also be that the business case for location-based networks is more obvious than with, say, Twitter. Another possibility is that the networks themselves have become business-friendly faster. Foursquare already has the ability to serve merchant offers based on location, although it is still refining its analytics dashboard. In any event, marketers are not sitting on the sidelines. Recently, Pepsico announced a “geo-based loyalty program” in partnership with Foursquare that will reward consumers who check in via iPhone at businesses that serve Pepsi products. The History Channel also is using Foursquare to promote its show, “America, The Story of Us.”

Do networks like Foursquare and Gowalla have relevance for small businesses? We think they do. Even basic data on who has visited a business, how frequently, etc. adds to the merchant’s knowledge of the customer base. Serving offers and other content to those customers has obvious benefits, although it still isn’t clear how the merchant can get a full picture of the return on investment from that content (merchants will know how many people used (and, presumably, saw) the offer, but won’t necessarily know how many of those transactions were made by customers who would have purchased anyway). Checking in to a business from a location-based network also can provide extended word of mouth for the merchant. It’s going to take time to figure out how to use these services for business, but that was true with Facebook and Twitter. And, as with Facebook and Twitter, there is a lot of potential and no real downside for businesses that experiment.

At Zavee we are currently exploring the fit with location-based networks, but we fully anticipate using this technology to add value to the Zavee experience for both merchants and shoppers. With both cash back offers by merchants and reviews by shoppers, Zavee provides a great deal of content whose value can only be enhanced by becoming location-aware.

The Zavee takeaway:

• You heard it about Facebook, you heard it about Twitter. Well, location-based social networks aren’t fads either.
• Businesses have wised up and caught up, and are right on the heels of consumers in discovering how to make these services useful, relevant and rewarding.
• If you were sitting on the sidelines while Facebook and Twitter were becoming huge, don’t let it happen again!