“Turd Blossom, according to partisans of Karl Rove and George W. Bush, is a Texan term for a flower which grows from a pile of cow dung. The term has gained notoriety in the United States, as reportedly this is one of President George W. Bush’s terms of endearment for his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Bush is also reported to call Rove by the nickname ‘Boy Genius.’” Via Wikipedia
In a recent entry about the increasing value of site names I quoted Goldberger, an insider in the business, as saying, “Dot com is king. Dot net is worthless.” Where does this leave dot org? One company TIAA-CREF which offers financial services to people employed in professions such as teaching and health care believes that their dot org status could be beneficial. The New York Times article on the new advertising campaign pointed out that it came at just the right time. One print add asks, “Ever heard of a .org crash?” which with the current state of the market could prove to very a very comforting idea to the target audience.
This a step in the right direction. Previous campaigns have torn at the heart strings (I admit to even tearing up a few times). Recall the montage of hard working professors and doctors followed by some phrase like “For all the extra hours you dedicate to your students, we think you deserve extra credit”. Though these campaigns were flattering to the ego they did not necessarily flatter the target audience’s intelligence as consumers. To flaunt the dot org will presumably give a sense of security to the younger generations (Modernista which is handling the campaign is targeting people still in the prime of their careers). These younger people are the ones more apt to look at the site “suffix” and may like the feeling of putting their money into the hands of a nonprofit organization.
Is this something new that can be expected of others? Can pushing a site’s name (specifically .org/.com/…even .net) create a positive feeling in consumers?
So, why is everyone so frustrated by folks like Ted Murphy and PayPerPost? We completed a gig for them and during our outreach and engagement, lots of folks didn’t get PPP. Well, it seems to me that not everyone does stuff for free, neither the Internet nor the physical world:
What we’re doing over at Abraham Harrison doesn’t make a lot of sense to many traditional firms and their traditional marketing and PR agencies. Let me explain something: social media, social networks, social utilities, and blogs don’t work the same way that traditional media outlets do. Here’s a might fine little excerpt care of TMCnet
“By now, it’s clear that successful SNS campaigns don’t follow traditional marketing rules; SNSes can’t be treated as channels because SNS members aren’t passive Web pages.”
“But most marketers still use traditional marketing tactics like run-of-site advertising and static microsites to push messages into these networks. Instead, to realise the full value of marketing on SNSes, marketers should be prepared to engage in a personal relationship with users by providing something of value. Promotions are good in this context, but even better are information or brand elements that users can pass on to their friends.”
“As such says Forrester, marketers should mimic how bands promote themselves on sites like MySpace – they engage their fans by posting frequently providing backstage gossip, and answering their questions. Against this background, Li concludes that marketers should ‘ditch the marketing tactics’ as marketing using SNS is ‘about building trusted relationships.’” Via TMCnet