Archive for social media
December 3, 2008 at 4:34 am · Filed under Uncategorized and tagged: assumption, blends, business success, Food, garyvaynerchuk, global, government policies, Industry Analysis, influencers, Marketing, Robert Parker, small businesses, social media, Social network, Social network service, tobacco tax, value chain, varietals, vintages, wine, wine brands, wine business, wine companies, wine industry, Wine Spectator, wineries
There is endless analysis out there and supposition/assumption that social media is important to the wine industry. Some people claim the vision is over-blown and that traditional sales methods will dominate for a very long time to come. Those people would be very wrong and taking their business, in the short term, in an OK position but long term dangerous position. The decisions about online strategies for wine companies today will have long range impact on winery, retail, etc… business success and ultimately determine if the business will survive. Here’s why.
I’ve written a bit about how wine is bought a couple years ago in what I called the Wine Life Value chain where I describe a bit on how wine is bought when people trust the source. Stronger the trust bond is, the more likely the sale. This is a little more elaboration on that idea and how Social Media is critically important to understanding that trust and scaling it to global proportions.
First a bit about the wine industry. According to Wine Business Monthly and US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Bureau there were 5960 bonded wineries in the US representing 12,000 US wine brands in 2006. Lets just assume that number is still valid (even though its grown, those are just the latest I have on hand for this post). Add to that the approximately 20,000 import brands (a number I’ve been told by several industry contacts) and we’re talking somewhere on the order of 32,000 brands available in the US, with new vintages every year, multiple varietals and blends and you’re looking at an incredible amount of selection for just the US consumer (only gated by protectionist government policies).
Add to this that many of the wineries (like most of the US economy) are small businesses with few employees and even fewer resources dedicated to creating a recognizable brand by the average person and what you are left with is an industry that is driven primarily by “Buying Pattern Influencers” (BPIs). Every industry has them – people who are knowledgeable and can guide your decision – but no industry has such a confluence of factors (selection, unique characteristics, variety of flavors, degrees of desireability influenced by individual body chemistry) such that word-of-mouth and BPIs become the primary driver (Yes, there are lots of HDTVs out there, but if you took every factor – size, brands, prices, etc… – you still don’t come anywhere near the selections of wines that change every year of production).
Hence wine is bought and sold by BPIs more than anything else. If you look at the Wine Life Value chain I discussed in my other post, BPIs vary in influence depending on the strength of the bond between the consumer and the BPI. Basic laws of business still apply in the wine industry, don’t get me wrong. If your product has no distribution of any kind, either direct to consumer or through three-tier distribution, then the consumer can’t buy it. But the BPIs matter the most. What are some examples? Well:
- Wine Spectator is an entire magazine that used the concept of BPIs, aggregates them and publishes a magazine that is very widely distributed. The experts, by virtue of their qualifications, are BPIs though their bonds to the consumer are weaker than say your wine geek friend. But in the end, its better than nothing and therefore influences a large number of people.
- Robert Parker and his newsletter are another example of a BPI using traditional media to distribute his opinions to a large number of people.
- I’ll get a little more personal – I know for a fact that the buyers of the Whole Foods and other grocery stores near me go to my wine guy (Bert over at Joseph George in San Jose), check out what he’s getting, and use that to select brands. Bert and his crew are BPIs not only to his customers but to other local liquor operations interestingly enough.
- Another one – my brother buys anything I tell him I think is good. He’ll do it blindly because I’m basically his BPI (or one of) and we have a strong bond (i.e. we’re close) so he’ll buy it site unseen.
OK, now Social Media and what does all this have to do with anything. The connection between the wine industry and social media is the basic understanding that Buying Pattern Influencers decide what gets bought and sold in the wine industry and the strength of the bond between the BPI and consumer is the factor that tips the decision from “maybe someday I’ll get that” to “gimme that right now” (i.e. it’s the factor that increases the conversion rate of touches – in marketing terms). If you understand that then you need to look at Social Media in this way – you can try to become the BPI or you can find a way to work with BPIs that are mutually beneficial to your business and/or the community of BPIs (i.e. the social network between BPIs).
Prior to online social media, it was nearly impossible to understand who were BPIs. You didn’t know an individual’s network, how big it was, or how influential that person is over his/her network. How could you? The only measure was this magazine/newsletter has this many readers therefore at a minimum you’ll get lots of exposure and at a maximum the publication will influence many many people. And it does just that through wide distribution. The weakness of such publications is that, save for a select few fanatics, they create a weak bond between the consumer and the BPI. Hundreds of thousands of weak bonds, but relatively weak none the less. Given no alternative, again, it’s the best bond there is for a newbie.
Along comes Social Media. Here’s a couple of videos with a simplified explanation of Social Networks and social media. But basically, it allows for communities to evolve, BPIs to develop to much wider audiences, and exposes the social graph of a person and scales it in ways never possible before. A single person can connect to thousands of other people and maintain communication with those people – two way communication, unlike magazines – and not only create a bond but maintain it and make it very strong. And that bond is not necessarily local either – that person can be equally connected to someone next door as they could with someone in another continent. Social Media allows individuals to become BPIs (see the most famous example in Gary Vaynerchuk and the like) or to get to know communities of BPIs and create strong bonds with the members.
This fact is reinforced by a recently release study of consumer behavior online conducted by Razorfish called “FEED: The Consumer Experience Report”. In it they surmise that:
And not too surprisingly, most consumers are using social networking services to connect with others—either actively or passively. Few are venturing there for less-social goals, such as finding out about new products or services. And despite the proliferation of games and applications available on social media sites, user activity is still dominated by communicating with friends and updating status messages to keep others abreast of personal news and developments.
They are also concluding that the “one-stop” destination for information and updates is in a state of disintegration because of the ability of the individual to make these connections, filter information, and federate tools to create highly personalized portals to their digital life – but that’s a topic for another discussion on Social Media and the wine world.
Its been speculated that wine enthusiasts that leverage one of the earliest social media tools – Blogs – are important and a catalyst of change. Wine Bloggers are in effect early adopters of this new technology and they, as a community, represent a group of BPIs. They are people who, through their passion for wine – either by trade or just because they love it – write about wine just to share that passion and potentially educate other people. They generally have small audiences but the important thing to remember is that there is genuine two-way conversation happening on blogs and each blog creates a micro-community with very strong bonds. Now there are by some estimates 1000 wine blogs out there. The industry is saying “yeah, but their audiences are small and they’re all spread out”. True…today.
Social Media is in its infancy and there are spectacular tools that have yet to be written. This first stage of social technologies are allowing for information to be liberated and democratized. Over time, technologies for how these disparate bits of information – 1000 wine blogs, hundreds of thousands of wine reviews on sites like Cork’d or WineLog, etc… are correlated and tailored to a single persons tastes and how this person influences the buying patterns of their social graph are all coming. (FYI – therein lies the danger behind the door for publications attempting to create the “one-stop” destination for their readers. Its the technology that changes the playing field that ends companies’ dominance and changes markets.)
For the wine industry this is a fantastic new frontier. The technology world is working feverishly to simplify the creation and identification of BPIs, something the naturally social world of wine has done offline for centuries as good wine would be recommended from one friend to the next. Technology and the Internet are just now catching up to where the wine world needs it to be – all about social interaction.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Is Howard Stern afraid of New Media? – Gary Vaynerchuk
- Online Video Wine Show Host Signs with CAA: “Swish Your Wine like Mouthwash!”
- Power.com Wants to Aggregate Your Social Networking Activities
November 19, 2008 at 7:02 am · Filed under Uncategorized and tagged: Blog, Critical mass, Facebook, Industry Analysis, latter point, Marketing, modes, Online Communities, OpenWine Consortium, Public relations, social media, Social network, software companies, Twitter, Word of mouth
Social media is creating quite a long tail of industries – lots of software companies, consultants, new modes of public relations, etc, etc. Some of them focused on getting you into using social media, which is great, and many of them aspiring to help you “use” social media for your business. The latter point is what I find interesting.
I’ve spoken on the topic of social media before (with assistance from the self-proclaimed “Bonafide Marketing Genius” Marta Kagan – FYI, I’m glad she has the confidence in herself to tag herself that way b/c she’s one of the few I would actually agree with) and I think the biggest point from my talk and others that I’ve seen (like Marta’s deck) is that this all is an excercise in sociology. There are so many technologies that one could use, so many things that you could do, but in the end what is happening to the web is just another means of connecting, interacting, and getting to know people; not unlike joining a social club (like a sports team, a cultural center, or whatever). In fact, just as you have “different circles of friends” offline (work friends, drinking buddies, sports friends), you’ll develop the same thing online and your community will drive you to the tools.
That’s where the idea “use social media” sticks in my craw a little bit.
I’ve had this blog since 2004 and I’ve interacted with many many people thanks to it. It’s mainly an outlet for my thoughts, creativity, and passion (wine, technology, and marketing) and I’ve made a serious number of friends in the wine industry because of it. My goal was to do exactly that, get to know people in the wine industry. One of the major things its taught me though is that the only way to truly understand what this “social media” thing is all about is to get out and do it. BUT – do it with a genuine desire and understand that its a means to reach out to a community (blog in particular). Its not a sales tool and its not a PR tool for social media any more then going to a conference is a PR tool for you. What I mean is you can go to a conference, chat with people, network, find people that you can stay connected with. If you contribute to the conference (effectively contributing to the ‘community’ that the conference is bringing together) then you can get noticed and in that sense you get some good word-of-mouth publicity.
But here is how to think of “use social media” (Ugh!). Its a sociological, human based filter. Its not a broadcast engine like the “information super highway” or the “series of tubes”. Doesn’t matter what tool/site you use, first and foremost your community has to be on that site and/or using that tool. There is always a “critical mass” that needs to be achieved before the tool gets useful. Kind of like a party, its not really fun until there are a bunch of people you know there.
Once your community is there, interacting, chatting, whatever then the dynamics of what happens is facinating. Things start to get “useful” and the human filter is formed. It becomes a situation where the community is as close as a bunch of office mates even though they are all over the world. I literally consider the community I interact with on Twitter my “virtual office mates” and I genuinely like interacting with them. The reason is that you can contribute (chat, answer questions, and otherwise participate) just like you would any other office. In the case of Twitter, it becomes just like a hallway conversation in an office. You can ignore it for a while, pop your head in with a little bit of nothing to say, put out some information or useful tool to the community, or you can put out a serious question to the group and get some solid answers. Pretty much how you would for any office with cubilcles and hallways.
The best part of all this is that when the community reaches critical mass of people in a certain technology/tool who genuinely like to talk about a particular topic, forming an open community, thats when the best things come out. If you contribute something to that community that is truly useful, it will get passed on to everyone very quickly. People will decide if what you said is interesting, show their friends and, if its applicable, their friends may pass on the information to their other “open communities”. The network effect takes over and your information has just become “viral” (i.e. it will spread not only in the current ‘circle of friends’ but to other ‘circles of friends’). More importantly, the human filter took over and since that useful piece of information you generated is actually VERY useful, it will get passed on for a while (or very funny, or very interesting in some other way – the latest on Twitter was a streaming video of puppies, not useful, just very Zen).
So if you find an open community or want to know where there is critical mass already for a community you want to learn about (for instance – the wine community is embracing Twitter and Social Networks) on one of these tools the best way to “use social media” (I hate the term because it makes me feel like “use your friends”, but I guess there isn’t a better way to say it) is to contribute in significant ways. Add to the community but more importantly be YOURSELF. If people like you, they like you. If they don’t, guess what…they don’t. There isn’t alot of advice that can be given there that your parents should’ve taught you before Kindergarten. Thats the funny truth of this “social media” craze. The fundamental sociological point is that this is making friends. Because even if you contribute something that spreads from network to network like wildfire, when those people check you out and “follow you” on Twitter, or Facebook, or whatever, then they start to get to know you in a more personal way then anyone over 25 ever thought possible. If you’re obviously contributing to promote your business it will come across. If you genuinely approach this medium (regardless of technology) as “getting to know people” in the way you’ve always done then you’ll not only have that “viral hit” you won’t be an online “one hit wonder”, you’ll have friends who can help you when you’re down, connect you to others, help you build business, get emotionally invested in your brand…. i.e. you’ll be a part of a community and how you do that is something your Mom and Dad shoulda taught you.
FYI – if you’re doing it for a business/brand it doesn’t matter – if people don’t like your personality, they won’t like your brand. These things have a way of piercing the corporate PR veil. Want an example? Supposedly Cisco “gets” blogging. Read their blogs and you tell me what you think….
Related articles by Zemanta
- Gartner Says Fortune 100 Not Up to Speed on Social Media
- Motrin learns about Twitter
- Flash flood: Mom bloggers and Motrin
- Twitter is a Conversation Hub, But It’s Only One of Many
- Al Gore on the Social Revolution for Change
- Should You Jump Into Social Networks to Promote Your Business?
July 23, 2008 at 11:23 am · Filed under Uncategorized and tagged: Advertising, Facebook, Featured, Google, News and Media, OpenWine Consortium, Ramblings, Search Engines, Searching, social media, Web 2.0, wine marketing, World Wide Web
Image via Wikipedia
So the topic came up today in the Twitter-sphere – Adwords, social networks (Facebook in particular), and their success (or lack thereof). I think its been talked about in the blogosphere or in conversations at various tech conferences but its worth repeating.
For all intents and purposes, it boils down to what Adwords was intended for and the way it works versus the evolution of the web today.
A few years back (eons in Internet time), the Internet was a super efficient way to find things – information, places, stuff to buy, etc. etc. etc. Google came along with a great way to search through HUGE amounts of data, create Google PageRank to make “authorities”, and basically try to get you results that most closely meet what you’re looking thus avoiding a huge number of porn links when searching on children’s bedtime stories.
The algorithm they devised was evolutionary (not revolutionary, one of the most overused terms in high tech) and it worked extremely well. As time went on, since the dominant behavior on the Internet was “searching”, using the information gathered and the search algorithm Google created they devised an ultra -efficient way to advertise. They already knew that you were searching (because Google is a search engine after all) and they knew what you were searching for and therefore Google could simply place paid ads next to your search result that would turn up sponsors who had stuff related to your search. This was brilliant in its simplicity because it was (and this is the key) ADDITIVE to your current behavior. VALUE ADD – simple, straight forward, and very very effective.
Google later expanded this to allow you or I to put ads on our site that would reflect something related to the information on the page upon which you placed the ads. Again, effective, but not as clearly value add because people on your site may not have necessarily been in “search mode”. They may just have been reading out of interest. But since the Internet was still basically viewed as a giant repository for information and “stuff” that you sifted through, “search mode” is what people generally were still in and it masked the few times people weren’t in “search mode”.
Now, with the advent (or rise) of social media, behaviors are changing. “Search mode” is still a dominant behavior but not what it once was. See, social media (blogs, networks, Twitter, etc. etc.) make the Internet more and more a place to “socialize”. Behavior changes from “searching for something” to “killing time” or “marketing” or “making connections”. Lets call this “hanging out” mode.
Now if you’re on a social network, you most certainly are not in a “search mode”. So then, what happens if Google indexes my Profile page and serves up an Ad related to the content there? The answer? Who the hell cares!
Why is that? Because if I’m on Facebook or OpenWine Consortium or any other social network, I’m probably not “Searching” but doing some sort of “socializing” (BS’ing, networking, hooking up, whatever) – I’m in “hang out” mode. Indexing my page and serving up ads related to keywords and content is NOT additive to the social media experience or the current behavior so this ad will be ignored. Even blogs, which are chock full of information, don’t see much return on Adwords because while they do typically report or inform they, more often then not, are sparking conversation or continuing conversation. Unless the blog is specifically reviewing something, in which case a few ads on where to buy that something may work, contextual ads are ineffective. This inefficiency in the original model was masked by the fact that predominant behavior was searching. Now with the behavior being socializing, Adwords and the searching optimization are only slightly more useful than putting up a static add.
Even Google admits that it hasn’t solved the social network advertising/monetizing behavior.
Net-net: Save your money. Buying keywords is NOT social media marketing.
Now, Google is looking to create a sort of “FriendRank”, in a recent patent application. They call it “Network Node Ad Targeting” and they intend to use a person’s social map to determine the number and quality of connections they have (and therefore their influence) and pay those influencers to allow advertisers the serve ads to their friends. Interesting, but we’ll see how it plays out. I’m sure they’ll be takers, but I’ll be awefully pissed if a friend or other contact is the source of ads I recieve! Still not a value-add unless the friend somehow has the ability to control the ads that get served and influence what goes to our friends (i.e. some sort recommendation and reputation system). Reading this patent, I don’t think it cuts it at all.