One of my closest friends has a tendency to use words that don’t actually exist. When I occasionally call him on this, his response is invariably, “I’m in marketing; I’m supposed to make up words.”

Really? Is making up words actually in the job description?

Typical wisdom says that buzz words are bad. But what about non-words? Shouldn’t there be a distinction between words used correctly and incorrectly? There are no absolutes, no categories that are always bad or always good. I do, however, have an opinion as to where certain categories of words might fall on that scale of good to bad.

Real words used well: The best of all possible situations. Language, when used appropriately can evoke emotion, and perhaps more importantly, action. Great writing uses real words well.

Real words used correctly: Even if it’s not the St. Crispin’s Day Speech, there is a lot to be said for choosing the appropriate words. Stay buzzword free, and you’ll automatically be ahead of the pack.

Buzzwords used correctly: This happens when an overused word actually gets used in the correct context. It’s OK to use the word ‘leverage’ if you’re actually talking about compounding effort to take advantage of something.

Real words used incorrectly: This is far more common than you think, mostly as a result of the easy access to online and word processor thesauri.

Buzzwords used incorrectly: The dreaded result of trying to take what you really mean and make it sound more impressive. Stop. It sounds worse. It’s not OK to say ‘utilize’ when you mean ‘use’ (they are not synonyms). It’s not OK to say ‘revolutionize’ when you mean ‘adjust’ or ‘change’.

Non-words: Typically coined by bloggers, these words are the business equivalent of ‘Brangelina’. No, massclusivity (exclusivity for the masses) and brandscape (the landscape of brands within a market) are not words. They’re non-words.

The place that marketers CAN excel with non-words is when they’re branding.  Neutron LLC’s most recent Steal This Idea discusses the 6 naming styles for brands, and the neological style (putting together morphemes to create new words with particular attributes) is essentially the creation of non-words. Non-words used well become new words, and then we’re back at the beginning of the spectrum again, evoking emotion and action from our audience.

Close this WindowBookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments Connotea del.icio.us

DotNetKicks Digg diigo dropjack.com dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com Furl

Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle linkaGoGo LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace MyWeb Netvouz

Newsvine PlugIM popcurrent Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy sk*rt Slashdot Sphere

Sphinn Spurl.net Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Last week I attended the Search Engine Strategies Conference in Toronto. While many of the presentations were interesting and useful, the session that stuck with me most was the very lively and somewhat controversial panel on Social Media Success. At issue, the value and need for authentic communications and conversations and the detriment, or lack therof, of social media ‘tricks’ or ‘hacks’. Rahaf Harfoush and Mitch Joel have each had incredibly insightful comments on the subject in their respective posts (SES & Social Media Strategy: what happened to ethics?! - A rant) and podcasts (SPOS #109 - Fair Trade Search Engine Strategies) and I feel the need to weigh in.

The value of authentic, 2-way conversations is clear. Smart consumers and clients know when they’re being talked to and when they’re being talked at. However, there seems to be a constant tug-of-war between two camps. Camp #1 are those who are willing to have those all important conversations first and let the happy byproducts like links and stronger keyword performance come naturally afterwards. Camp #2 is looking for strong results quickly, because it’s an awful lot easier to have a conversation once you have a big group of people listening to you.

While I understand the allure of both sides, I think Rahaf hit it right on when she said, “The internet has a short attention span and a long memory.” When your brand puts something out on the Internet that is inauthentic, you tarnish not only your own reputation, but the reputation of social media as a channel for dialogue. The linkbait scandal that hit Money.co.uk, and other instances like it make the jobs of all social media marketers more difficult.

Scamming the system doesn’t just hurt the scammer, it hurts the system itself. So while Mitch said in his podcast, “I don’t think it’s that it’s evil or bad or negative. I just think it doesn’t have the long term effect that the true value can have in building all of these channels.” I think he understated the impact slightly. Evil? No, probably not. Bad? Closer perhaps. Negative? Absolutely. I would argue that anything that impedes quality messages from reaching interested parties is negative.

My philosophy in social media marketing is that if you can’t answer all of these questions “Yes”, then you probably shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing:

• Am I speaking with my own voice, sharing my own opinions?
• Am I adding to my brand rather than detracting from it?
• Would I do or say the same things if this were in person instead of online?
• Am I comfortable knowing that this will be permanently recorded and archived in some format or another?

One item I agree on with everyone involved, is that this is a topic that we should all continue to discuss. What are your thoughts on inauthenticity in social media marketing?

Close this WindowBookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments Connotea del.icio.us

DotNetKicks Digg diigo dropjack.com dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com Furl

Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle linkaGoGo LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace MyWeb Netvouz

Newsvine PlugIM popcurrent Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy sk*rt Slashdot Sphere

Sphinn Spurl.net Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

For SMB’s it is often difficult to develop, plan and execute a marketing strategy for obvious reasons - lack of time, money and expertise. Why not outsource some or all of your marketing?

Would you install a new furnace in your home, or replace all the plumbing yourself? Probably not. This is best left for seasoned professionals who specialize in these areas. You can try to save money and cut corners by doing it yourself - but chances are you will end up with a small fire in the basement and a lot of wet household items (trust me on this one).

This analogy holds true for marketing functions - SMB’s often hire a junior marketing manager thinking that this will save money and increase marketing effectiveness in the short term. Unfortunately this is often not the case. By hiring inexperienced individuals, costs can easily sky-rocket and strategic campaigns become infrequent or disorganized. In addition to the lack of expertise, the overhead to employ an individual full-time can actually be quite costly - therefore negating the original intention of the hire.

Why not outsource? With the increasing number of tools available and the complexity of integrated campaigns - why not leave it to seasoned professionals? I have seen a number of companies go this route with tremendous success. Some of the benefits of outsource marketing are below:

1. Range of Expertise - outsource marketing firms are made up of seasoned professionals who understand strategy, tools and tactics in a variety of marketing areas. With dynamic changes in the marketing arena, a variety of expertise at your disposal is critical.

2. Lower Cost - it is amazing how many times I see SMB owners think they are saving money by hiring a sole full-time marketing manager. Often times a salaried employee is unnecessary and the overhead is significant. Quality outsource marketing firms can be placed on retainer at a fraction of the cost, with the benefit of more experience at your fingertips.

3. Strength in Numbers - rather than hire an individual, why not have a team of professionals at your service? This allows for more integrated campaigns, a greater number of tools to deploy and increased flexibility.

4. Increased Efficiency - a team of marketing professionals will be able to churn out high quality marketing campaigns at a much faster rate than an individual manager. This makes for increased quantity and quality of marketing materials for SMB’s.

Outsource marketing has moved beyond SMB’s as well. Corporations are beginning to recognize that large marketing departments can be drastically reduced - resulting in cost savings, greater expertise and increased efficiency. The old argument put forth by in-house marketers that outsourced professionals ‘don’t understand the brand’ well enough to execute campaigns is antiquated at this point. While executive level strategy can remain in-house, planning and execution can often be farmed out with great success. Specialized talent can then be allocated to address particular areas required for marketing. This is particularly relevant as new technology continues to provide opportunities for more effective marketing if deployed strategically.

Both SMB’s and large corporations should constantly be assessing their marketing requirements and plotting these requirments against current in-house staff. If the two don’t match - it’s time to outsource.

Close this WindowBookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BUMPzee!