Common ground! Woot! The quote you point to is perfection; indeed, the brands in question are using Twitter as a new version of the e-mail barrage. This is why, when I have heard others say they think Marriott is using social media well, I staunchly disagree. It’s as one-way as ever, not more meaningful, not more engaged. Same approach, different technology. And yes, the steps in the process are still the same; they just might not ever happen in a linear progression. You might be more likely to see a product review, for example, that zips you right on through to a purchase. Or conversely to see a complaint that erects a barrier that didn’t exist before. All the more reason to develop a true social strategy that helps you navigate the new waters. (BTW, I was struggling for months with “what is the new marketing funnel?” and somehow missed the Forrester version. Beth Harte presented it in her strategic planning presentation at Social South and my jaw dropped. It resolved a major hole in my brain, so hat tip to Beth.) Thanks for sharing your brain with us.

Sue

I have no disagreement that there is much more affecting consumers’ path through the funnel (which the Forrester model shows), but even in that model the desired move, however complicated, is from Eyeballs (awareness) to Buyers (participation / loyalty) and Contributors (advocacy). You can try to do two things at once, but what matters is where your customers are in the funnel.

This quote from that post struck me: “Building loyalty now means entering into a dialogue with them and letting customers participate in more meaningful ways than static customer feedback surveys or a constant barrage of emails announcing special promotions.” the moonfruit and Marriott Hawaii campaigns strike me as new versions of the special promotion email barrage. These aren’t *meaningful* forms of participation (in the traditional sense, that’s BUYING THE PRODUCT!!). Nor is it real advocacy–people weren’t retweeting out of an endorsement of the brand, they were trying to win something.

What needle did they move? What needle were they TRYING to move? That’s the real question. If moonfruit was trying to create awareness, they succeeded. I know they exist. If they wanted to sell whatever it is they sell, they failed–because the common comprehension of them is that they ran a cool Twitter campaign that gave away free computers, but how many people understand what they do? Without comprehension of their product, no one’s buying.

The Marriott Hawaii promotion suffers the same lack of direction. Were they creating awareness? Of what? That they have hotels in Hawaii? Were they creating comprehension? Of what? That they “do” social media? Were they trying to get people to stay at Marriotts? What about that campaign would make me want to pay for a night at a Marriott, when they’re giving it away for free?

There are undoubtedly all sorts of new forces at work, but the basic steps of the consumer progression are still the same. What’s changed, I think, is that there is a mirrored funnel of movement back from the organization OUT, to its customers. One that represents steps towards ITS engagement with its community.

Hmmm…now I’m curious as to what those phases would be!

I didn’t have high expectations going in, just wanted to see what would happen. It was low cost and commitment.

It seemed to attract just a few new people, but the real and unexpected value was what was shared by some existing fans, some of whom I never interacted with before.

Here was just one exchange from a winner on Facebook (using just their first names):
—

Rosa: I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON!!! ((((happy dance)))))) ((((happy dance)))) high five! chest bump!

Walter: Well, this certainly caught my attention! Ah, … so, … I’m curious…what did you win?

Rosa: well, mr. social media, i won a t shirt from http://www.teecycle.org. it’s a t-shirt recycling company started by a cool cat i met through twitter. i’m sure it’s true for you, too, but some *wicked cool* tweeps have found me on twitter. yeah, yeah, yeah for twitter!!

—
So anyway, I’m not sure I’d do this again anytime soon, because this kind of promotion IS getting oversaturated. But this time I was very happy with the results, and it was fun to make others happy, too

As Linda mentions, maybe this is a first step for better engagement. Although, as a marketer, I don’t think this strategy-less approach is best, as a consumer, I think I would pay more attention to a company that has engaged me rather than one that has just pushed information at me.

PS> And Sue is quite brilliant, isn’t she

Thanks so much for continuing our conversation, and for your flattering compliments. (And truly sorry I could not respond to your last E-mail – I’ll eventually explain what has been going on with me for the past week.) I’m in complete agreement with you that brands with the fortitude to take the plunge should be applauded.

But – having never, ever been accused of being overly optimistic – I think we also need to offer suggestions and encouragement. Actually, I should definitely note here that when you and I were tweeting about @marriotthawaii, they were totally on top of their game and responded to us with “let us know how we can improve our efforts.” I absolutely applaud – with standing ovation – that type of openness. That’s the spirit in which this post was intended. Hope it didn’t come off too curmudgeonly

Best,

Sue

At last, we truly disagree. With all due respect to one of the most intelligent people I know, I would say that is more like Marketing Strategy 1.01. Marketing just isn’t this neatly linear anymore. See Forrester Research new marketing funnel. If I am telling a story through social channels, as in the Ford example, there is absolutely no reason that I can’t create awareness in the process of telling you why you should care. Marriott Hawaii, for example, not sure what their strategy is or what they want to differentiate on. Say, 100% hypothetically, that they want to stand for “Mahalo”, the gold standard of Hawaiian welcome. If they tell me stories about that, then I also get that they exist.