Pediatric AIDS/HIV Care is the only organization in the Washington, DC area dedicated to supporting children affected by AIDS or HIV.   In 2009 PAHC hosted a Casino Night fundraiser. Having previously partnered with RTCRM, to raise awareness of DC’s AIDS/HIV crisis during President Obama’s Inauguration, PAHC asked RTCRM to help promote this event.

The Agency took a multilayered approach to the promotion, using printed flyers, email and Facebook to generate awareness. In addition a special landing page was developed where participants could register for the event, donate money and win extra credit toward prizes at the event. And RTCRM hired an improv comedy team to stage an intense poker match in the middle of Dupont Circle — a highly trafficked Washington, DC location to generate interest in the Casino Night event.

The email and Microsite were a huge success – almost crashing the server only a few minutes after they went live online. And despite heavy rains the night of the event, over 100 people still made it out to Teatro Goldoni. PAHC ended up raising thousands of dollars and gaining many new allies through registrations for their mailing list.

As a Gold ADDY winner, RTCRM’s campaign will automatically advance to the District Two competition, which comprises winners from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington, DC area ad clubs. This year’s DC Ad Club competition received over 740 entries from 90 agencies, clients, individuals, and students.

The ADDY® Awards Competition is a three-tiered national competition conducted annually by the American Advertising Federation (AAF), its chapters, and districts. With 60,000 entries nationwide, the ADDY® Awards Competition is the advertising industry’s largest and most representative competition for creative excellence.

At RTC we love to test new technology by putting it into practice (the daily grind) as much as possible. Our latest attempt was to use Google Wave as a collaboration and planning tool for a new business pitch. Rather than the internal network, Xinet,  or (sigh) email, we wanted to use something that allowed real-time one -to-one AND one-to -many coordination in a single place. We also hoped the plug-ins (charts, drawing boards, and voting buttons) would allow for more emphatic and engaging content that would spark our brains and getting the creativity flowing. In theory, Wave would be the perfect agency tool. In practice, we suffered from the same, if not additional complaints as the rest of the digital scene. You can find a number of complaints online; Here are our top 5 :

5. Logging in is complicated and requires another username, password and account. You might be able to use your g-mail account, but not if you’re invite went to a personal account.
4. People can see you typing. Once you start typing, even if you decide not to post it, people have already seen it. Privacy is limited. And in fact there’s no need to actually post anything, you just have to type and delete. Type and delete….
3. Gadgets are cool, but you have to go find them on your own. They don’t actually exist in Wave.  You have to go online, search for “google gadget for wave” and then add it. You would think there would be a menu in Wave for this…
2. Collaboration without chronology is a mess. You have the ability to respond to old posts, which sounds reasonable, but really hurts sensory input. I personally found receiving responses to old posts to be chaos- Wave doesn’t even alert you to these posts, so your left thinking no one has responded
1. It is sooooooo slow. So slow that we had to wait 3 hours for profile pics to upload. That’s enough time to plan our strategy, approach and start working on tactics.

In the end we saved everything to the network and communicated via email and meetings. Wave didn’t pass our test, though we did have fun comparing our complaints to the rest of the online world.

All three search engines have started showing Twitter results among the search results. This is a profitable move for Twitter and a questionable move for Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. One that could go really right or really wrong. There are also important implications for brands to consider. But probably the most important and interesting point of consideration is this: If the search engines, who have made billions of dollars refining search results based on user needs, think that consumer-generated content “improves” their offering, at what point will branded content even have a say in the consumer experience? At what point will branded content get kicked to the back row? I’d argue that this movement has already begun. Twitter results on Google? Case in point.

Research has repeatedly shown that people trust their friends and family more than any other source. In fact, according to a 2008 AdAge Article, recommendations from family and friends trump all other consumer touchpoints, further proving the impact of word of mouth. It is also known that consumers rely more heavily on a “person like them” than on branded content  (Edelman, 2007). What the search engines have done by adding Twitter posting to their results is amplified this affect. They have taken the person-like-me-affect and made it easier to access, to review and to act on.

if social networking and consumer-generated content grows and begins to supplant real content, at what point does “real” information even matter? If word of mouth is the best form of information and people trust their friends more than anyone else, why bother ever looking at branded content? Wikipedia is a great example of this. Wikipedia, a consumer-generated information site, on average has 72 Million visitors a month. Compare this to Encyclopedia Britannica, traditionally a trusted expert source in information, who has only 3 Million visitors a month. (Quantcast, 12/18/09) This is the point where consumers have said “I  trust other consumers, more than branded content.”  Now this isn’t so bad- Wikipedia is a great place for information - but what about the implications for retail marketers?

If I am a consumer and statistically speaking I am more interested in what Jimbo948 has to say about the Droid phone than Verizon, why would I even look at what Verizon has to say? I’d rather follow up with Jimbo948.

See, consumers are able to say whatever they want about brands and brands have no ability to stop it. Brands can contribute to the conversation, which if done properly can improve brand perception and make them a leader in the space, (e.g. Zappos, WholeFoods). However, if done poorly companies can hurt themselves further, by going off message or trying to be something they are not. If brands ignore the conversation all together (e.g. Motrin), then consumers are left to fire at will, with no brand input. Of course brands have been dealing with the influence of social media for some time now, but this situation used to be limited to dot.coms and the privacy of personal social networking apps. In most cases, brands didn’t even know conversations were happening. But now that consumer-generated brand “messaging” appears among search results, brands not only have less control, they have to know it’s happening.

So what are brands to do? They should embrace social networking. They should get involved in the conversation in an appropriate, non-intrusive manner. They should enable their consumers with content, and then leave the reach and distribution to the masses. Brands can no longer control the dissemination of messaging, and they need to recognize that consumers are now their eyes, ears and mouths. The brands that become most comfortable with this, most quickly, will be successful. The ones that do not…well they are leaving it all up to “people -like -me”.

It’s not a question any longer whether pharma has a need – bordering on moral obligation – to provide value and service through listening and responding via social media. We’ll build a playbook just like we did when we on boarded e-business initiatives 10 years ago. The real question emerging is WHO within the pharma enterprise will own this roll, and HOW will this new ‘Chief Social Media Officer’ relate to other internal partners and their agencies.

So far, numerous leaders are emerging from the pharma organization from legal, regulatory, brand teams and consumer/HCP centers of excellence. Time for a new COE to centralize this role? Maybe.

From one perspective within our advertising agency, this isn’t far from the decision in the 1960’s when agencies carved out ‘brand planner’ role – the one person who would own the market research (listening) and the planning tool box and ensure pull through to execution. This looks and feels like exactly the same need.

To that end, we’re working on a white paper this week with focus on this new COE role, a potential job description, connectivity to key internal and external partners, and some thoughts on the toolbox – stay tuned..

The FDA is currently hosting a visitor survey on their website, www.FDA.gov, which asks a number of usability and information preferences. Among these questions are sections about a visitor’s social media usage, which is interesting in light of the recent FDA hearing on social media and the pharma industry.

The FDA held their briefing, the first ever on social media, earlier this month and invited experts from various industries including publishers, ad agencies and pharma companies. The FDA, which has notoriously ignored most digital advertising mediums and turned a blind eye to social media, now seems to be acknowledging the application of social media for consumers.

The web survey in itself is not unusual, but the question about social media may be a prelude to usage of such by the FDA themselves. One only needs to look at how successful the CDC has been in recent years, to understand the impact of social media on information dissemination and community outreach within the public sector. If the FDA were to utilize social platforms in a similar way, they could speed up the passing of information to consumers, marketers and manufacturers alike. FDA guidelines would be better known and the veil could be lifted on what is and isn’t allowed. Even more important, if the FDA were to go so far as to use social media to engage and gather feedback from the public, than consumers, marketers and manufacturers could contribute to a more transparent conversation with the FDA. Admittedly, this seems a long way off and until we know the FDA’s full position on social media usage, we can’t expect that they will be using it in this way. But, one can hope.

This film is not scheduled for a DC release, so if you want to see it, here’s your chance.

> **Everything iDon’t…**
> _(cut Apple-esque music)_
> _(cue viral marketing tactics)_
> **DroidDoes**

The Droid does a range of things that iPhone doesn’t according to the ad, including offering a physical keyboard, multitasking, a five-megapixel camera, widgets, “open development,” a removable battery, etc…

My only quibble: if Verizon was already planning to throw millions of dollars at this “iDon’t” campaign, they could’ve at least hired an ad agency who knew when to use proper apostrophes and primes. Maybe one who wouldn’t then mix them multiple times, within seconds of each other, in the same television ad.


I’m looking in your direction, [McGarryBowen](http://www.mcgarrybowen.com/news.html#2009).

[^1]: The ad additionally noting that the name “Droid” is licensed from Lucasfilm.

As a part of studying the health of over 5,000 people from Framingham, researchers asked participants for names of their family members, close friends and colleagues, in order to be able to track the participants’ health long-term and find them in the case of moves, death or other life changes.  While not the goal, this data provided deep insight into the social network of the town over decades.  And, looking at that data, researchers earlier this decade observed that health conditions were more prevalent among people who knew each other.

For example, if someone became obese, the likelihood that someone they were connected to would become obese increased by 171%.  In the early 70s, 65% of Framingham residents in their 40s were regular smokers; this dropped to 22% by 2001.  And, as the researchers noted, quitters weren’t randomly dispersed throughout the community, but were clustered amongst people in a social network.  “People quit together, or they didn’t quit at all,” according to James Fowler of UCSD, one of the doctors who examined the Framingham data.

It’s interesting to think about how we can harness the power of community to influence health in the Web 2.0 version of social networking.  It suggests that if we can bring people together and help them make connections, we might be able to encourage positive health behaviors that will see lasting results.

You can read a PDF of the Wired magazine article here

I’m not sure I know anyone who works in advertising who doesn’t love the show Mad Men.  Their season 3 promotion allows you to create your Mad Men avatar!  I had to jump right on this.  That’s me in the  bright blue in the middle.

I noticed that the cartoon versions of Don Draper and Roger Sterling (left) are looking a lot like RTC’s Matt Connor and Jeff Ross.  Does that make Barry Kessel the Bertram Cooper of RTC?

Needless to say, I think this promotion is a brilliant use of social media and viral marketing.  Check the Twitter avatar of half the people who work in advertising and they have changed over to Mad Men avatars in the past few days.   But the question always becomes, how do you prove success on promotions like this.  RTC wasn’t involved in this promotion, but here’s what I’d do.  Until the show airs, you can’t determine real ROI of increased viewers.  So, right now we’d be watching the leading indicators.   But what are those leading indicators?  Here are a few of the stats we’d be watching:

Stats as of 07/29/2009 for past 7 days:

• URL posted to Twitter 685 times
• URL posted to 112 blogs
• “Mad Men Yourself” mentioned on 84 blogs
• “Mad Men Avatar” mentioned on 65 blogs
• 315 results on Flickr for “mad men yourself”
• Posted to Delicious 224 times

One thing we learn right away is that Twitter fans are Mad Men fans.  It’s an interesting piece of data for future promotions.  A quick check on my Facebook friends showed more than a few have also utilized and shared their avatars!  Names are obscured to protect their privacy.

Lots to learn from this promotion, and lots of fun to be had!

What we do is not unique. We are not the only agency, or company, or consultancy that practices or preaches relationship marketing. We have no corner on the term. But while what we do may not be unique, the way we do it is. Our people, our experience and our ability to solve real-world business problems make us unique.

So let’s start by talking about what we strive to do for our clients.

Relationship marketing is the practice of creating a dialogue—an intelligent, impactful conversation—between a brand and an individual.

That’s easy enough. But why have a conversation? Because dialogue lets us capture data to create relevant messages and content. The individual consumer is far more likely to engage when what we communicate is informed and has personal context. Responsive individuals who engage tend to do the things we want them to do. Bluntly put, it makes our clients more money. And it helps them make that money more efficiently.

There’s an immense amount of research, studies and white papers that cover this territory. If you scour the marketing literature (and I hope you do), you’ll find much written on the marketing “funnel” and how to create and measure brand engagement. Check out this excellent McKinsey video. (I have the full article if you’re interested).

Some of the best frameworks have been developed by Wunderman and Y&R. But the entire marketing world has been in agreement on one key fact for a long time:

Relevance drives results.

The reasons we want our clients to invest in creating conversations are many, but I’ll list just two basic ones:

1. By listening, we learn individual needs and preferences. This information in and of itself is highly valuable. It lets our clients communicate the right message at the right time via the right channel to make a sale or provide beneficial information. We listen by collecting data.
2. Personally relevant messages are more likely to be read and acted upon. It’s that simple. Think Amazon, which makes relevant book and product suggestions, or iTunes Genius, which builds music playlists based on your existing likes. What mail or email do you read vs. what you toss/delete? Relevance increases response, i.e. desired behavior, by 200% to 1,000%.

We listen in two ways: by asking questions and by observing behavior. So we survey individuals and ask them how we can help them get what they are looking for. We also observe what they do: what Web content they view, what they have bought from others, when and where they engage with our clients.

Of course, if we don’t provide value for the individual, we’ll lose him or her. Conversation over. And if we don’t create value for the marketer, it won’t pay out. Engagement over. We must please both parties.

Our clients measure and add value on their side of the ledger, but for the most part, they aren’t very good at creating value for the individual. They seek transactions—sales. But to create a considered purchase, they must engage in a dialogue and provide the right information to move the individual to a positive decision about their brand. Making a transaction happen is part of what we do—it’s good old-fashioned direct marketing. But trying to force a transaction on an unengaged individual is becoming less and less effective. It’s what the banks did with credit cards. That model is in trouble in today’s Google-ized, Facebooked world and the social Web, where people have multiple conversations with their peers about companies and products all the time.

In a considered purchase, the currency for the individual is information, or what is loosely called “content.” We provide information that helps individuals buy the right computer for a small business, design the right car, learn how to diagnose or treat a condition, understand long-term care insurance… or any one of the hundreds of things we’ve been tasked to do for our clients. Note that our actions are driven first and foremost by the individual—not the client. That’s why they outsource to us—we are here to interpret and meet the needs of the individual consumer. By doing so, we address the needs (i.e., increased sales) of the client.

The value for the marketer is ultimately financial, even for nonprofits like AARP. We continually measure and refine how this data-driven dialogue affects our clients’ financial performance (what is delivered to whom; where and when it is delivered). It’s both a micro and a macro exercise. We measure individual tactics. We monitor the total results of the tactics to measure campaigns. We understand how the tactics interact.

Let’s go back for a moment to creating a relevant conversation. You could argue that a good shoe salesman at Nordstrom does the same thing. And you’d be correct. But that shoe salesman is expensive and isn’t very scalable—because he or she must engage in one conversation at a time. We harness data to have conversations with thousands—or millions—of individuals. Data and technology are the enablers of these intelligent conversations.

When we pick a mailing list or make a media selection, we use data variables to make sure we are contacting those people most interested in what we have to say. When we get someone to engage with our client—on the phone, on the Web, in the mail, at retail locations—we seek to capture those data that let us keep the conversation going in the most meaningful way for both parties.

Married with consumer insights, data lets our creative staff know who they are talking to and why. It lets our media professionals know the best places to invest marketing dollars. Data is both the driver of, and the result of, the conversation.

Relationship marketing is a simple concept, with much complexity in the execution. If a client asks for one piece of advice, as a relationship marketer you tell them, “Grow ears.” This involves building marketing systems and programs that let you listen as often as you speak to individuals. Then capture the conversation in data and harness it to give personal meaning to what you say and do next. Measure what happens, make hypotheses and refine.

If it were easy, the clients would do it themselves. But once they see the hidden complexity behind the simple formulation “grow ears,” they hire experts like us to help them get it right. That is our unique selling proposition.