{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.

No_results

That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.

Logo_distressed

Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

Jeffrey Hayzlett is a social media evangelist. As Kodak's chief marketing officer, he's led the company into new territory, reaching out to consumers online and changing the company's structure in response. He's hired Kodak's first Chief Blogger and created the position of Chief Listening Officer, a role he thinks will be required at every major company in the near future.

Last year at the 140 Character Conference, he coined the term twankers. This year, he focused on the emotional technology at work in social media and how to use it.

Hayzlett doesn't mince words when giving out social media marketing advice:

"People talk about ROI. Throw that shit away. It's really about your return on ignoring."

Hayzlett initially took to Twitter to connect with his friends and family: "Then 15,000 to 20,000 people started following me, which is nice."

But he continues to value personal interactions more than blatant PR messages and sees social media as an amplified way to listen to consumers.

"I have relationships with people online that are deeper than people I've known a long time in real life."

He calls Twitter an emerging "emotional technology" — one reason that Kodak is so well positioned to reap the rewards of social. Photographs are an intrinsically emotional product. Hayzlett uses the act of taking a picture as an example of this. When you spend effort to retake a picture multiple times, "you're trying to capture the emotion coming through at that time."

Donny Deutsch, television host and chairman of Deutsch Inc., agrees with Hayzlett:

"Any great piece of marketing celebrates the human condition. We have to remind ourselves — it's the people, stupid."

Kodak is aware of how its customers like to share their photographs: "When people share these moments, just like you share that tweet — it's powerful."

In regards to social media, Hayzlett takes the same approach. Creating branded content and sending it into the void serves no purpose. You need to connect with your readers, followers and fans with something they value.

"You've got to give somebody something. There's an unwritten contract."

That's also why Hayzlett tries to keep the tone of all of Kodak's marketing consistent and approachable.

"There's a piece of you that goes out every single day. For us that's very important — that's what we do every day."

Hayzlett was an early adopter of social media and digital marketing, but now he's starting to see "even those hardened CEOS and CMOs, they're starting to get it."

But he finds the process of listening and sharing to be absolutely integral to business today.

"If those moments aren't shared, they lose their power."

Meghan Keane

Published 20 April, 2010 by Meghan Keane

Based in New York, Meghan Keane is US Editor of Econsultancy. You can follow her on Twitter: @keanesian.

721 more posts from this author

Comments (14)

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Mike Stenger

Mike Stenger, MikeStenger.com

Very smart guy. Sadly, the only place I remember him from was on Celebrity Apprentice recently :-) Companies like Kodak definitely have something going for them by really utilizing the platforms out there right now. And it's very interesting how underestimated listening is when so many things can be done from it and so many things happen because of it.

over 6 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

bob

Shouldn't it be "Wankers?" 

over 6 years ago

Meghan Keane

Meghan Keane, US Editor at Econsultancy

Bob, Twankers= Twitterers+Wankers. Hence, Hayzlett coined a NEW phrase.

over 6 years ago

Jeff Molander

Jeff Molander, CEO at Molander & Associates Inc.

I think a lot of this is frightening. What can be said about major corporations that believe and invest in creating separate structure for listening? This is akin to Donald Rumsfeld creating his own intelligence agency that gave him the answers he was looking for (the ones that weren't true). Kodak already has infrastructure geared around listening. It's called customer service. To create more, officer-level infrastructure around listening is to: a) give a F to Kodak's existing customer service investment b) invest in listening to the Web as if the Web is another realm I'm stunned that major corporations continue to march to the drum-beat of self-appointed social media experts -- to the extent that they create make-believe yardsticks to measure their success. This is glorification of the Web not intelligent utilization of it. Buzz, conversation, sentiment, emotion. These are all backward metrics. These are the mass media metrics of yesterday. Yet they're being touted as new and innovative. These are designed to measure the ability of Kodak to persuade -- not sell. This is about branding, not demand creation. This is about hoping for sales not manufacturing them. The opportunity the Web presents us with -- in an economy where only SALES and LEADS matter -- is to create demand not memories or good vibrations that result in sales through some kind of black magic. It's about creating tangible demand that can be captured, nurtured and converted into a sale as part of a process -- not some hokus-pokus emotional ghost. The matter-of-fact-ness (demonstrated in these quotes) about how social media "automatically" creates sales is in complete harmony with what their brand advertising people claim. Am I alone in believing that social media is the new mass media... and that this overlooks the true prowess of digital?

over 6 years ago

Blake Rice

Blake Rice, Digital Marketing Manager at ScentAir

Jeff - I think that your final sentence sums up your misinterpretation of this concept:

“Am I alone in believing that social media is the new mass media... and that this overlooks the true prowess of digital?”

The logic of “sales and leads” being the more important thing in our economy seems flawed (Others are welcome to disagree). I do agree that this has more to do with branding and brand perception, but can you really discredit that?

As I see it, mass media is media created and designed to reach a large audience. It is, to an extent, generalized. It assumes nothing of its listener.

On the other hand social followings are by their very nature (opt-in) quite different from mass media in that the "followers" have chosen to consume this information. And although the groups can grow quite large, the message remains very specific - because the audience remains consistent.

Now, if you choose to disregard the value of brand equity in an unstable economy, your points may hold some water. But, the way I understand the basic principles of branding and marketing – a happily captive audience is like gold to anyone who can harness it.

about 6 years ago

Jeff Molander

Jeff Molander, CEO at Molander & Associates Inc.

Hi, Blake... Interesting thoughts. You believe that making sales or generating leads are less important than what, please? I'm honestly interested to hear what you're putting first. Social followings are opt-in, certainly, but I argue passive. They're "drive by" in that they're curiosity-based. They're not task-oriented. There is no down-side to Friending or Following a brand. And un-Friending or un-Following is nearly impossible (and purposefully so). Further, I argue there is no expectation of being a brand's friend nor is there certain consumption. There is, so far, assumption of consumption (if you will). Namely, much of what brands broadcast (and I use that word purposefully) via social media (Facebook, Twitter) is never consumed by the followers/friends as it "rolls off the page". The real-time Web requires constant monitoring and few, as an example, use Twitter monitoring devices. There is no version of "opens" as with email as it relates to "social media branding" effectiveness. The notion that they're large and specific is counter-intuative in my eyes. I'm not sure how that works based on consistency. I guess what I just mentioned argues against the idea that there is any durable, reliable consistency.

about 6 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Jonathan Salem Baskin

Yes, all brilliant new media brilliance. But what does Kodak DO again?

about 6 years ago

Blake Rice

Blake Rice, Digital Marketing Manager at ScentAir

Sales and generating leads should be the focus for the car salesman, but as a marketing professional, I would argue that a bad economy is one of the worst times to abandon branding efforts for a "Glengarry Glen Ross" sort of sales approach.

A more calculated, strategic approach will pay dividends in the form of long term success. It is my personal opinion that making a connection with a customer on a level that is not "give ME" is quite valuable - weather they act or not - it's all valuable top-of-mind exposure. Or what you call "hocus pocus."

As for the points made about social being impossible to "un-friend" I find this to be unfounded... Has anyone else had this problem?

Also, social media can be tracked. A simple google search will reveal ways to effectively track and report on social media. Furthermore, sites like wordpress blogs and facebook have quite powerful analytic back ends that I use daily to track activity on our page.

I feel that you've twisted my words a bit:

"The notion that they're large and specific is counter-intuative in my eyes."

I simply said that "although the groups can grow quite large, the message remains very specific."Meaning that because they are opt-in, there is less need for adaptive messaging.

about 6 years ago

Jonathan Salem Baskin

Jonathan Salem Baskin, Author at Histories of Social Media

Blake, you should check out this video of David Ogilvy, who arguably invented the idea of brands and effective marketing communications. He recorded the piece in the 1970s for a group of direct marketers, who were considered the ugly ducklings of the agency world.

Punchline: selling is why you have brands and, by association, social media conversations. When you strip out all of the high-falutin faux truisms about brands and perception and whatever...you'll find that you're left with the very mercenary facts that Molander defends.

A bad economy is the VERY time you need to redouble your focus on sales and marketing, and they're the basis upon which successful businesses are built.

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br2KSsaTzUc

about 6 years ago

Blake Rice

Blake Rice, Digital Marketing Manager at ScentAir

The video was great, thanks! I have an immense amount of respect for Mr. Ogilvy and have read Ogilvy on Advertising many times over. While it may be somewhat dated, the content of the video is still very relevant today. However, I feel that I have missed the relevance to this conversation.

By defending the importance of social media, I am not advocating the "cute, creative copy" approach to marketing. Nor am I suggesting that one should put all their eggs in the social media basket just because it is the "cool thing to do." I am merely trying to make a point that social is becoming an integral part of communicating with an audience - whether we like it or not. And to dismiss it as a waste of time is baffling to me.

I pose this question: What would David Ogilvy say today if you were to tell him that he could create a dynamic, ever-evolving ad (social media conversation) that he could target to the people with pre-existing interest in his brand or product - complete with real-time tracking.

I contend that social media would pique his interest.

about 6 years ago

Jonathan Salem Baskin

Jonathan Salem Baskin, Author at Histories of Social Media

I think he'd laugh out loud...

...and then I think he'd say that social media are technology tools and not a strategy...that ALL media are social, and always were...and that business strategy was, is, and always will be based on generating leads and selling things.

about 6 years ago

Jeff Molander

Jeff Molander, CEO at Molander & Associates Inc.

Hi, Jonathan. Actually I think Ogilvy said that in the video -- that sales and leads IS what this IS all about. But then Blake suggested the subject that I introduced -- and he re-introduced -- and you commented on (via the guy who invented all of this) was not relevant.  At least to him. But then Blake conjured up Ogilvy again while, in his words, defending social media.

The actions and words seem to be providing a sense of closure on this debate. Blake clearly wants to defend social media from attack. Who's attacking -- I'm not quite sure. But scrolling up clearly indicates a disconnect between what Ogilvy says is the end-game and Blake's position prior to -- and post -- Ogilvy. And make no mistake, Blake's position is a majority position.

Sales and generating leads should be the focus for the car salesman, but as a marketing professional, I would argue that a bad economy is one of the worst times to abandon branding efforts for a "Glengarry Glen Ross" sort of sales approach.

Setting aside how filthy a thought *selling* is (using social media)... a "call to action" defecates too. Further, seems to be some kind of demand creation going on here. The more people take logical, critical thought (like what I offered) and convert it into "dismissive-ness" the more people, apparently, are willing to invest in this very "different" and "new" social media. Criticizing Kodak's use of social media is a no-no. Specifically discussing how un-structured, un-focused it is around fostering valuable interactions (behavior) between brand and customers is an even bigger no-no. But it can be dealt with :)

"This was never about weapons of mass distruction.  This was about a brutal dictator!"  ;)

about 6 years ago

Blake Rice

Blake Rice, Digital Marketing Manager at ScentAir

Maybe the debate has de-railed a bit... After reading back it is entirely my fault and I apologize. I will admit, I am arguing two points: Social as a branding tool and its value as a integral piece in a business strategy.

So, let me make this last attempt to bring everything together.

My intention in my first post was to defend social media from attack from people who attempt to discredit the value of dedicating resources to a social media. In March, Facebook was the web's most visited site - Topping Google. There is an audience here. I applaud anyone who goes after it.

Referencing the economy, you seem to dismiss social media all together as a waste of time. Passive or not, it is exposure all the same. Exposure and frequency are the catalyst for brand awareness and adoption. While dedicating resources maybe a new idea, it is not necessarily wrong. Relative to other marketing efforts, social is inexpensive.

Here is an interesting article about what we can expect from FB in the near future: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/21/facebook-vs-google-game-on/?section=magazines_fortune

Speaking to my second argument, I feel that some are too quick to throw away social media because they don't understand where it fits in. I have been informed that "ALL media is social" and that these media are "technology" and not strategy. But, what is strategy without technology or media to execute and deliver your message? Did you dismiss the internet when it was just another "new technology?" I see it is as a piece of the strategy - not the strategy itself. I do believe that this is the approach that Kodak is taking.

about 6 years ago

Jonathan Salem Baskin

Jonathan Salem Baskin, Author at Histories of Social Media

Blake, thanks for trying to wrap this up. There's nothing to "defend' regarding social media, as evidenced by how much money brands and throwing into it. My issues with branding are far more fundamental than whether or not social is a good or bad branding tool. I also don't think anybody -- yourself included -- has the faintest idea how social 'fits in' as a marketing tactic. The applications will develop and get purposed and repurposed, I'm sure, but I find most of the explanations for social that rely on its benefit to brands to be as hollow as every other explanation for some expenditure being good for branding.

Re Kodak, it comes back to lead generation and sales. It looks like it'll announce better-than-average results tomorrow a.m. but that those returns will have NOTHING to do with its consumer business, which continues to evaporate: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FBI0E00.htm

My prediction: The CMO Hazlitt will leave the company before the board/investors demand more return from all the brilliant social stuff that's celebrated in the above story, and he'll go do it for another company (or start a consultancy and make a mint). This, just like most of the declarations and promises made in defense of social media, is an old, time-tested routine. 

about 6 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.