Is Conversational Marketing Already Dead? Nope

Since John Battelle of Federated Media (FM) was nice enough to comment on my post about whether conversational marketing is already dead, I figured I ought to at least read the recommended reading.

Sometimes I think my brain is so well trained to ignore marketing (it’s not perfect, I do have an iPhone) that my eyes don’t even notice it. There are definitely a couple of FM Campaigns that I’d put in the conversational marketing realm. One is very, very well done in terms of doing something new and that’s the FM: Tech Battle Royale (brought to you by Toshiba). It’s true three-way conversational marketing and I’d like to learn how the campaign fared someday.

I also really liked the Rackspace campaign. I’m not sure this quite meets the three-way standard in the way that Tech Battle Royale does (in fact, I am sure that it does not), but it has some nice tie-ins with FM and I’m a total sucker for real stories from real people. Lots of conversation from real live people. I like the campaign.

The HP iPaq 510 “Did you Hear the Email I sent” campaign seems like a nifty campaign, and it’s very slightly interactive. But one of the not all that high-trafficked blogs (OhGizmo) running a regular “voice post” as a tie in to get people acclimated to listening to text, doesn’t really cross it over into conversational marketing for me. And again, the ad was just barely interactive. Still pretty nifty though.

A couple of disclosures. I think Battelle is a great conversational marketer when the brand is John Battelle (that’s a compliment, not a ding). It’s far easier for people to be conversational marketers for themselves than it is for an advertising agency.

I was disappointed when the reaction was so strong and so swift with the People Ready campaign because people are always averse to change (especially, apparently, if it involves Microsoft). I suppose I expected/wished Battelle would have “coached ‘em up” when the heat got turned up high, but admit that’s easier said than done.

Conversation marketing is certainly not dead as far as FM is concerned, my brain is just too well trained to notice. And that’s fine in general, but it’s darn stupid when you’re writing about something your brain automatically filters out!

FM is playing around with the space, and I am glad they still are. If your company is willing to fork over the $900 for the conversational marketing summit FM is hosting, I say go for it. I’m sure it will be a great networking event, and you just might learn something. Besides San Francisco, is usually lovely in September and the Presidio is just plain gorgeous.

Is “Conversational Marketing” Already Dead?

Federated Media (FM) is an advertising network launched completely under the premise of “conversational marketing”. I was disappointed with the way FM founder John Battelle handled the big “People Ready” campaign dustup earlier this summer.

I’m even more disappointed that for the last month or so whether it’s on TechCrunch, GigaOm or Fred Wilson’s AVC, all the FM ads are traditional. I don’t have any problem if the new definition of conversational marketing is “advertising traditionally on blogs that are conversational,” but my sense is that isn’t what Battelle really is going for. But since right after the “People Ready” dust-up, he hasn’t said anything about it.

Earlier today I saw an ad for a summit on conversational marketing that FM is holding in a few weeks. I saw the ad on Advertising Age and now I notice it’s on Fred’s blog as well. But before blowing $900 on the “summit”, I’m interested to know what FM’s business model actually is.

If it’s to create new types of ad campaigns that are anything but traditional, the $900 may be well worth it. But if the model for FM is to simply be the best place to advertise traditionally within the blog and social networking world, I’m not so sure. Both are interesting businesses, but the former is far more interesting to me than the latter and if it’s the latter, I’m not sure there’s really anything to be learned from the summit. If it’s the former, why do all the current campaigns seem to be so traditional?

I wish John Battelle would be conversational about it via a blog posting before anyone shells out the $900 to learn something. As these “summits” are almost always really about networking and not learning anything, I would not discourage you from attending on that basis. But if the goal is to learn something, I’d like to understand why all FM’s ad campaigns currently seem so traditional first. From FM’s homepage:

At FM, we believe that the best conversations are those where all parties are engaged, informed, and valued. Working with our marketing and publishing partners, Federated Media is helping to define this innovative form of online marketing: a three-way dialog among creators, audiences, and marketers.

I’m not currently seeing the innovation or the three-way dialog. Not even a little. If that’s just FM retooling post “People Ready”, fine, but I sure wish FM/Battelle would be, uh, a little more conversational about it.

P.S.FM just raised another $4.5MM of funding
P.P.S is there really no Wikipedia entry for conversational marketing?

Summer of Love 2007: Scandal in Silicon Valley

OMG OMG OMG!

Michael was paid (gasp) by Microsoft to say something about Microsoft. Gasp again.

Even though it ran where an advertisement normally ran, it was text. Since Michael is a writer and it was text, which is writing, even though it was an ad where an ad was, people might have thought it was not an ad, but just Michael writing.

If people couldn't infer that since it was an ad and Michael was endorsing Microsoft, that Michael wasn't paid...you have to be kidding me!

Nick just couldn't stand for it and posted something on his blog. It sort of made it seem that what had actually transpired was that Pfizer had paid the New York Times to run an endorsement of some new radical cancer drug, and the New York Time's ran the ad on the freaking front page only it looked like a news story.

Meanwhile back in New York, Fred thought Nick was being kind of dumb.

John who was somehow responsible for the thing in the first place took it on the chin and said there should have been some disclosure somewhere that they were paid endorsements. But they were ads and so this strikes me as John trying to make Nick happy without actually making any sense in the process.

Michael thought Om was lacking in fortitude under attack and that John threw him under the bus and I didn't get the impression Michael found John exactly manly in all of this.

Where are the gentle people with flowers in their hair and LSD?

Is the LSD here for "Let's Start Disclosing" or is it "Let's Stay Dumb"?

Disclosure? Do you expect every Lebron James commercial to end with Lebron saying, "Nike pays me to endorse its products."

I know, Lebron isn't a journalist so it's not a valid comparison. But it is, because it's a freaking commercial. I don't care whether Michael is or isn't a journalist. If I see someone endorsing a product in an advertisement, I expect that it's a paid endorsement. Anyone would be safe in always going with that expectation. I do. Disclosures seem pointless if it's a given.

I remember John a little bit from the 1990s. I didn't know him, we may have exchanged a few e-mails. I heard him speak a few times. He struck me then as someone who thought WIRED magazine was more important than the New York Times. He and Nick both are striking me that way now.

Let's look at the subscriber numbers for both.

Let's not and say we did.