Is Chevy getting it?

In cooperation with the NY Times, Chevy bought above one-page ad in today's NY Times and launched a conversational marketing campaign.

Headlined 'We need to talk', the ad copy states:

"At General Motors, we take our responsibility for the environment seriously. If that sounds disingenuous, coming from the world's largest producer of cars and trucks, well, maybe it's time to talk - in depth and frankly. That's what this is: the beginning of a dialogue between people who share a planet. Fact is, we need to talk. We want to talk."

After Chevy explains their various environmental initiatives, they close:

"We expect skepticism. So if you have questions about our fuel solutions, we are ready to answer them. Over the next several months, this dialogue will take place on the web and in the pages of this newspaper. Ask your questions on the web, and we'll answer them, right here in the Friday Op/Ed section of this newspaper. Please submit your questions and comments at nytimes/com/chevy.
These are serious issues. And we are making serious progress. We hope to prove that to you. But we haven't got all the answers. We value your input. And we promise to listen."

The ad is signed by Beth Lowery, GM VP, Environment, Energy and Safety Policy.

The overall idea is good and an interesting evolution of the infamous Chevy Tahoe campaign. But, once again, it falls short:

- When you go to the site, there's only one thing to do: Post a comment. Q&A, the most important section of the site, has not even launched yet.
- Posting a comment doesn't feel like a real conversation. It just feels like another one-way communication. If I have questions, why bother posting on the site? Why not write GM/Chevy directly on their site or through email?
- A real conversation has to be authentic. Even though the ad copy is well written, it doesn't read like a real person wrote it. Too polished, too corporate.
- This feels like a great media idea that wasn't executed well. It's one of those alibi campaigns that give executives a warm, fuzzy feeling: "We're doing a lot about the environment and deploy these cool, new marketing tools, called Conversational Marketing."


The tagline worked really well for the iPhone, great piece of copywriting. To use it as a headline for the Chevy campaign doesn't feel right.


We need to talk? Chevy might but I have no intention to follow their command.

Overall, a good idea and I'm glad Chevy tries to join the conversation. But they fell short. Once again.

P.S.: It might be helpful to include the campaign in search results of NY Times. If you search for Chevy, the campaign doesn't even come up. Only nerdy bloggers like me cut out ads to remember the URL.

Stunts or conversational marketing

Scott Monty followed in the footsteps of his boss, Joseph Jaffe, and asked the online community online for help to purchase a product. In Scott's case a snowblower. 5 months ago, Joseph asked for an iPhone in exchange for a podcast sponsorship. (Both from Crayon fame.) And Grant Prouly, one of Jaffe's readers, asks for a Macbook Pro.

Now, before I go any further, let me clear about one thing: I believe participatory media and social networks are great for people helping each other out. With thoughts. Conversations. Money. Prayer. And this post is not about slamming people in need.

However, these two sentences in Scott's post concern me:

"If this angle doesn't work out - and I have very low expectations - perhaps Toro, Sears or Lowes are paying attention. It would be an interesting project for them to be involved in."

Is this a real project? Is it more than asking friends to help out? And, even more important, is this the state of conversational marketing?

Didn't I just read in 'Join the Conversation' from Joseph Jaffe that:

"81% of marketers believe that in 5 years they'll be spending as much or more on conversational marketing vs. traditional marketing"

or was I dreaming? Now, I'm agreeing with Jaffe that small ideas are the way to go but how small can ideas be before companies just walk away from any conversational marketing tactics?

Let's face it, some brands believe in conversational marketing, understand the philosophy and idea behind it. But they need to understand how conversational marketing can scale, how they can reach potential/potential customers and how to convert them. Or brands won't spend a dime utilizing conversational marketing.

There are ways of doing it. Scalable ways. Efficient ways. And it will take the whole social media community and a lot of work to convince brands to spend their money on these tactics. In order for conversational marketing to really take off, we need fresh ideas, fresh voices and fresh thinking. And executives of cutting-edge companies to move the conversation forward and advance our thinking.

I'm not sure bartering for iPhones and snowplows will do the trick. But I'm sure we need less tricks/stunts and more thought leadership and case studies.

Henry Jenkins and Reefer Madness

Went to Barnes & Noble this morning to purchase Convergence Culture from Henry Jenkins. (See this post to understand why I dragged my family to a bookstore on Sunday morning.)

I looked everywhere for the book: Business, Management, Advertising, Culture. Until I finally had to ask the cashier and she pointed me to the Cultural Studies bookshelf. What I saw was 'Reefer Madness', 'The best shrooms experiences' and other books about hallucinatory drugs and out of body experiences. Apparently, Barnes & Noble had problems categorizing 'Convergence Culture' and placed it under 'Cultural Studies'.

It shows how important categories are for human behavior. Categories help you digest information better and easier. And they have a lot of disadvantages: They put you in boxed you don't belong in and when you're on the fringe of a category you might consider not even existing.

On another note, Joseph Jaffe bumrushed the Amazon charts today with his newest book 'Join the Conversation'. Very cool insider event and I was impressed by ooVoo, the video conferencing and messaging platform.
Now, that's conversational marketing.

Observations from ad-tech

- There was almost no talk about mobile marketing. My guess is, everybody assumes mobile will be a player in the near future. No reason to hype it anymore.
- Interesting role reversal: The Chief Creative Officer from Publicis defended the Status Quo of the outdated distribution model. Managers from P&G and Motorola were passionate about social media and didn't believe the old agency model is sustainable.
- WOM was the hottest session. The room was filled 20 minutes before the session started and the line outside was 100 people deep.
- Best remark of the conference: Media Plans should be designed for optimization.
- As expected, best session was about Conversational Marketing.

Summary: ad-tech has run its course. There are better events out there, this has felt stale for a while. It's been good to know you.

When will they get it?

Are we residing in an ivory tower? Are we so removed from reality that we don't really know how to implement our 2.0 vision? And execute it?

Most people that read my blog understand the importance of conversational marketing, the necessity to listen to the consumer and revise all existing marketing strategies.
But most brand executives don't read blogs. They think kids and nerds read blogs. They don't believe in Social Networking. They think teens and weirdos are on MySpace. They are in their 40's and when we talk to them about the importance of conversational marketing, they just answer "That's all nice and dandy but I need to sell products."

I can show them research, case studies, white papers - the whole enchilada. But what they say is: 'Get me on as many homepages as possible.' Back to the old distribution model.

Sure, we don't have to fight Online ROI fight anymore. But most brand managers are stuck in 2001-2002 and they are scared to move along. Corporations tend to reward mediocrity and that worked for many decades. But, as we all know, mediocrity will lead to bankruptcy or a brand on life support.

I realize there's a tidal wave of blogs, articles and columns about the changing marketing landscape. But where are the real-life implementations? Where are conversational web pages? Brands still think they know what consumers want and how they want it.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not doubting the change that's happening right now. And I don't doubt that only brands that adjust to the age of conversation will survive and prosper.

I'm just worried about some brands who are not even close to making a change. They will be left behind. And I will miss them.