Comments on: Back to School with 2.0

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:46:32 +0000

This is terrific, Dan, thanks for sharing this with Daily Fix readers. You’re right: there isn’t much compelling data, but this is a good start.
I appreciate your input on this post. You’ve added substantially to this.

By: Dan Levine

Dan Levine — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:36:48 +0000

Hi Ted,
Two articles came across my Twitter feed today with data re: teens and social networking — thought you might be interested:
Teens have already proven receptive towards brands that have entered the world of social networking:
http://tinyurl.com/n2bttd
22% of teens visit social networking sites more than 10x per day:
http://tr.im/xfJ5
Not tons of data, but there’s some out there …

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:02:09 +0000

Back at you, Dan. Thanks for the excellent conversation.
You offer sound advice: “gather data. . .vet your idea. . .test it before going live. . .don’t over-invest.” I’ll tell you, even with all of that, companies can still make a mistake. Many times they use focus groups as an “and all, be all” and in my experience, they don’t always lead to the best conclusions. People in focus groups tend to tell marketers what they think they want to hear, in many instances. Or, if the focus group is comprised of teens, they offer opinions as part of the “herd”. It’s just the nature of people and the nature of focus groups.
I believe you’re right, Dan, when you state: “for now, the SM route is too new and unpredictable.” That’s why staking too much of the marketing spend on it might not be the wisest decision at present.

By: Dan Levine

Dan Levine — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:56:10 +0000

Ted, I agree. Certain rules do apply especially when trying to engage teens. Well said.
And indeed, tough call on how much $$ to put toward a campaign when you have such a small sample size of data. You make a great point: too little investment and it’s a meek campaign; larger investment plus poorly planned campaign = disaster. Tough spot to be in for many companies.
I guess the best thing to do is gather as much data as possible, fully vet your idea — perhaps even test it before going live, and don’t over-invest. Risk-averse companies should continue thinking of alternative/more traditional means of reaching this population (or less risky 2.0 endeavors) — for now, the SM route is too new and unpredictable.
I appreciate the back and forth as well — thanks for engaging. Great topic, excellent conversation!

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:31:13 +0000

Right, Dan, and I should have said that in my earlier response. It’s important to analyze the ROI for any and every campaign. However, the things we already know about kids’ demographics will go a long way to interpreting some of the data.
Another point you made about trying, possibly failing and trying again makes me think: how many resources should companies pour into the new media? I mean, if the commitment isn’t serious enough, the campaign probably won’t work and then the ROI data will be misleading. On the other hand, a huge commitment might be a disaster. . .In view of this, I think it a good idea to look at campaigns that have been successful–not in and of themselves–but for the sales they actually accounted for.
New medium or not, certain rules do apply. Overt hard sells in the guise of fun or creating a place for engagement just won’t fly.
Terrific conversation, Dan. I’m enjoying your thought process and insights very much. Thanks much.

By: Dan Levine

Dan Levine — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:17:53 +0000

So wouldn’t a great way to gather data be to analyze those campaigns that others have tried? Sometimes, especially in a new-ish medium, you need to try, fail, try again, fail again and learn from your mistakes (and others’) before you find success. If you have a big enough budget, absolutely you can try it out for size and see what sticks. There’s no road map yet and this might be the best way to gather data and learn.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:52:49 +0000

Hi Elaine,
You’ve raised some very valid questions here. I’m not convinced this is going to work either. Large companies tend to conduct research or use the research of consultants they trust, but let’s face it: the retail sector is in a lot of trouble. I’m not sure any amount of research or a “sophisticated” mix of marketing campaigns via social media and a traditional mix are going to hit their mark. Teens are likely more sophisticated than these campaigns are. As Dan pointed out, they don’t like obvious attempts to sell to them under the guise of fun and games. We’ll have to wait and see how back-to-school sales figures look after the fact. I’m hearing sales are anemic at best. . .
Thanks, Elaine, for weighing in on my post. I appreciate it.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:42:10 +0000

Wow, Dan, you’ve added a lot of great insights to my post and I thank you.
Love what you said here: “My experience tells me, however, that the brand that figures out a way to engage teens around their interests in a way that feels reciprocal or shared (and not like a veiled sell) …. that’s where we’ll see success.” Absolutely agree. I work on kids’ product packaging for every demographic all day long, and I can attest to that. As a parent of tweens (wanna be teens), observing their behaviors and interactions–this rings true.
Bottom line: kids love to be entertained but they can smell a sales pitch from a mile away. If/when they do, marketers have lost them.
Good stuff, Dan.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:26:01 +0000

You’re right, Ted – show me the data! How can any of us, who are Generation Xers or Boomers, assume what will work with teens? These companies can afford to test and do their due diligence before launching a campaign. The question is…are they just trying it out for size without the data? Can this be possible?

By: Dan Levine

Dan Levine — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:23:26 +0000

Because they have grown up in a 1.0 world, teens today are savvy enough to know the difference between true engagement and engagement with a (hidden) purpose. I believe teens are best engaged in social media via their interests (and where their friends are) rather than around a gimmick or game. I don’t believe the book’s been written yet on how best to do it successfully (or where best to do it …. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.). I’m struggling to come up with a successful campaign off the top of my head, but I think Mt. Dew might be a good place to start looking. (My focus is primarily on parents of elementary school age children …. teens are a different target altogether.) My experience tells me, however, that the brand that figures out a way to engage teens around their interests in a way that feels reciprocal or shared (and not like a veiled sell) …. that’s where we’ll see success. As for using traditional media, I think it would be un-wise (unless you’re a small biz with a limited budget) to focus just on social media. I’d be careful to mix the traditional and 2.0 campaigns, though. Has the potential to feel too contrived. Great questions – looking forward to others’ ideas!