Update on MINE magazine

A couple months ago I wrote about MINE magazine (see blog entry here) and its unique approach for repurposing content, packaging it with an advertiser's message, and re-distributing it to readers.  MINE recently won two awards at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival.

I've received about half of my 10 issues of MINE magazine in the mail now, and I have to say I'm pretty impressed.  It's an interesting mix of content.  When I was first signing up for it, I thought the variety of content from such a wide range of magzines seemed random.  But it's really not that different from a mix of different types of music on an iPod.

The other thing about MINE that's impressed me is the advertising.  Each of the four Lexus ads that appear in the magazine are personalized, using the information I provided at registration.  Some of these ads include my name, my city of residence, or a couple of the interests I specified on the reg form.  It feels a little strange to see this kind of personalization in print -- we're used to seeing web ads with this level of personalization, but print ads usually don't go to this level.  But it's done tastefully -- and I feel like it's boosted my impression of Lexus as a brand that's interested in my needs.

If a printed magazine (long perceived as being slow or unable to keep up with online campaigns' personalization and targeting) is getting this customized, what's your excuse for implementing more customization in your online campaigns?

Great viral video about the media transformation

Old media companies that can't make the digital transformation are doomed.  Here's a wonderful viral video that was posted to YouTube last week.  I don't need to add much more -- the song pretty much sums it up.

How would you prefer to be contacted?

When collecting contact information on an online form, doesn't it make sense to ask the person for their preferences?  It seems like common sense, but at least 90% of the forms I see don't have that type of option.

Here's an example.  In the world of trade magazines, qualifying and re-qualifying subscribers is a major business expense.  Some trade publications spend more than a million dollars a year making calls, sending direct mail and emails, doing cover wraps on their magazines, and doing co-registration to reach their circulation goals.  Once you have a subscriber's name on your file, you have to re-qualify them every so often, to make sure they're still at the same place and to update their info.  But most trade publications don't bother to ask you how you'd like to be contacted for circulation renewals.  They just start sending you emails, or making phone calls, or sending you direct mail pieces until you renew.

In the 9 years I've been in trade publishing, I've never seen a requalification form as smart (yet simple!) as this one from Website Magazine.  After you change/verify your contact info and purchasing influences, you're taken to this screen where you specify how you'd like to be contacted for circulation renewals.  They provide all sorts of options, from email to text messages and calls on your mobile phone, to an alternate email address, business phone, and a postcard.  Plus they even give you a text box to include your comments or additional information.

It's simple, effective, personal, and user-focused.  It probably saves them a ton of money.  Why don't more websites do this?

Take control of your name in search results

As college graduates prepare to enter one of the toughest job markets in modern times, not only do they need to worry about the normal job seeking advice like keeping their resume short, writing a good cover lettter, never showing up to an interview late, etc.  But now they might need to Google bomb themselves, as Avelyn Austin points out in this excellent post.  Facebook pictures, YouTube videos, or other incriminating evidence might make an employer think twice about hiring you.  Some job seekers may employ the Google bomb tactic (basically trying to manipulate the search engines so more flattering results appear on the first page).

Google itself has come out with a new tool that might help people take more control of their identities online.  Called Google Profile, it lets you "control how you appear on Google and tell others a bit more about who you are."   Google claims that with a Google profile, "you can easily share your web content on one central location. You can include, for example, links to your blog, online photos, and other profiles such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and more."

It will be interesting to see how well Google Profiles rank in Google.  Will a search on a name turn up a Google Profile in the top few results, on top of the Facebook and LinkedIn results that now dominate many name searches?  If so, this might be an excellent way for people to give the world a more organized view of themselves within search results.  Google Profile might be an easier alternative to buying a domain name for yourself and setting up your own website to serve as a hub for your online identity.  (Personally, I'll stick to www.michaelmadej.com as the center of the brand that is myself, but I can see how many people might not want to go to that extra effort.)

I spent a few minutes adding my own profile to Google Profile, just to see how well it works and what kind of information it asks for.  At this point it appears to be pretty sparse, but in time I have a feeling they'll be adding more to this tool.

I still think back to this Wall Street Journal article from a few years ago, about parents picking names that will be easily findable in Google.  Maybe none of this naming stuff will be an issue when these kids grow up though -- perhaps search will be so advanced (or so integrated into everything else we do) that a unique name won't be necessary for Google results.  In reality, I think names will matter less and less as the technology gets smarter at pegging exactly who you are.

Rate my ad!

Update 6/11/09:  Read more details on Digg Ads

Recently social bookmarking site Digg announced a new initiative for its advertising, where the users rate the ads and discuss them.  Poor performing ads have to pay more, or get kicked off the site.  (Details here in the MediaVision blog)  It's an interesting concept, and it just might be crazy enough to work.

Remember a decade ago when everyone thought search results needed to be unbiased and "editorial", rather than being paid?  At the time, GoTo (later Overture, now Yahoo! Search Marketing), and later Google AdSense and MSN adCenter have proven that the users "voting with their mice" for pay-per-click advertising is a smart and lucrative business model.

Will people vote for ads?  Comment on ads?  Similar functionality already exists in Facebook, with the thumbs up or thumbs down button next to each ad.  It sounds like Digg plans to take this to the next level, although I couldn't find any further details on their plans yet.  Update 6/11/09:  Read more details on Digg Ads

Certain kinds of ads are likely to work well here.  Think about the Super Bowl, where you have day-after-the-game reviews of the ads in every major newspaper and TV station, plus dozens of websites.  People will weigh in on advertising.  But is Super Bowl advertising different, since companies are spending millions of dollars on the airtime and likely six or seven figures making each 30-second spot?  How will that model translate to a simple online ad, created by a not-so-talented marketing manager in less than an hour?  That's where I fear the Digg model may fall down.

But whether or not it works, kudos to Digg for trying something new.  If this type of model is going to work anywhere, Digg is probably the place -- since the whole site is based on people voting for articles.

Sometimes the most simple contests are the most successful

As I was sorting through my postal mail the other day, I saw an ad for a heating and air conditioning company that caught my eye.  The reason I noticed this ad promoting a contest is because of its simplicity.  It's nothing new, nothing groundbreaking...but still smart.  Cyngier Heating & Air Conditioning is running an "oldest furnace" contest.  If you are found to have the oldest furnace, you win a new furnace.

The reason I like this promotion is because it's directly tied to the company's line of business.  Usually you see "win an iPod for filling out this survey" or "win a free vacation" when the prize has nothing to do with the company who is sponsoring it.  But in this case they're giving away a furnace -- which makes sense.  But more importantly, Cyngier is going to end up with a stack of entries for people who are admitting they have an old furnace.  I'd imagine that's a pretty valuable list, since it'll allow them to approach the non-winners with an offer to sell them a new furnace.

A few ways Cyngier could make their contest better next time:

1. If the customer can't verify the age of their furnace, the fine print says they can't win.  I don't know a lot about furnaces, but my guess is it's going to be very hard for most people to verify the age of their furnace.  That seems like a deal-breaker to many people who otherwise might consider entering.  I know my furnace has its date of manufacture stamped on it, perhaps many others do too.  A friendly note in the contest description to that effect might be helpful.  Or if people can't verify the age, let them enter anyway for the potential to win a secondary prize.
   
2. Cyngier isn't really interested in the oldest furnace, they're more interested in finding a bunch of people with old furnaces.  They could set up a similar promotion that invites people to enter any furnace that is at least 20 years old, then hold a random drawing.  Under the current contest, homeowners who have a 25 year old furnace probably don't have much motive to enter, since they'll be pretty sure someone has a 30 or 50 year old furnace.
   
3. Instead of needing to print a PDF and fill out a sheet of paper to enter, make the entry form online.
4. Tie it into social media.  Ask people to take digital pictures of their old furnace when they enter (an optional part of the contest), then let people browse the pictures on the Cyngier website.
   
5. A "tell a friend" about this contest is a no-brainer too.

Suggestions aside, this type of contest is a smart and simple way for a business to drive new sales leads.  Can you tie your company's sales leads to a contest like this?

New Facebook Chat: An example of social media going anti-social

Within the past couple days, Facebook rolled out new functionality for its chat application.  The old system only allowed you to be "online" or "offline" for chat purposes -- there was no in between.  So either all your friends were able to chat with you, or none of them were.

With the new functionality (see official Facebook blog post here, and AllFacebook.com explanation here), now you can allow certain groups to see you online and chat with you, while appearing offline and inaccessible for chat with others.  Now you're in control of who can and can't chat with you.

This isn't new technology or a new idea.  You've been able to appear offline to certain users or certain groups within IM applications for a long time.  But this is groundbreaking for Facebook.

Thanks to this change, I'm sure there will be plenty of people I'll never see in my Facebook chat window again.  I guarantee some people will only allow chatting with a specific circle of their friends.  And people will be able to go "into hiding" a lot easier, where they're chattable to only one or two people, while the rest of the world can't see they're online.

Facebook is supposed to be a social network, but this feature sounds more anti-social to me.  It'll make avoiding particular people on Facebook a lot easier.  But if you don't want to talk to certain people on Facebook, why are you friends with them?  (That's a rhetorical question)

Even though I call the new Facebook Chat anti-social, it certainly has its benefits.  Will I use it?  No doubt I will.  But that doesn't make it any less anti-social.

Photo by r-z