Spare Change

This blog has moved

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:37:00 +0000

This blog is now located at http://blog.social-marketing.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.social-marketing.com/feeds/posts/default.

Shall We Play a Game? Interactive Adventures in Social Marketing

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:50:00 +0000

My latest area of interest lays in the intersection between games and storytelling. Each approach by itself has great potential for engaging people in a way that more common forms of marketing do not. Whether it's an alternate reality game like Urgent:EVOKE that challenges players to solve problems in hypothetical, but real-world, scenarios, or the NANOSWARM novel and video game targeting childhood obesity prevention, when people are drawn into the action themselves, they are more likely to be moved to action in real life. See Jane McGonigal's recent TED talk on how gaming can make a better world for an eloquent introduction to how that might work.

Stories give us the opportunity to see the consequences of actions - both positive and negative. When we "get to know" fictional characters and care about what happens to them, the emotions that are evoked heighten the memorability and learning that can happen at the same time. On a related note, I'm happy to see that, in addition to the efforts of entertainment education professionals who work with television writers and producers to weave health and social issues into series plotlines, NBC Universal network execs are now directing the network's shows to do "behavior placement" of eco-friendly and health-related issues. Seeing people--whether they are fictional or real--engaging in healthy or pro-social behaviors increases perceptions of social norms and can affect viewers' attitudes toward the behavior (for better or worse, of course -- it depends on how and by whom the action is portrayed).

Throw in game elements in which someone can direct the story and try out what works and what doesn't, and you have the makings of a vicarious experience that can lead to bigger changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. The Choose Your Own Adventure books of my youth were always fun because they were more than a passive reading experience; what kid wouldn't want to control the story? I'm enjoying an adult collaborative version of this, ongoing right now, in The Great Game, a serialized story by Tim Dedopulos in which readers get to vote on what happens next.

From a social marketing perspective, this "choose what happens next" approach in an interactive format gives us the opportunity to customize messages and content for each user. The UK's Drop the Weapons campaign created a YouTube-based interactive series called "Choose a Different Ending." At the end of each video vignette, the viewer has a decision point where they can choose whether to take a knife, which set of friends to follow, whether to fight, and is taken to the next video based on their choice.

Wahi Media is doing some exciting things with this idea, in a more sophisticated way. "Wahi" stands for "web automated human interaction." This approach involves a simulated conversation, in which a person or people in a video talk and ask questions of the viewer. Depending on the viewer's responses, the subsequent videos are tailored to provide messages that directly address their knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, as well as collecting the data for later analysis. The newly launched TeenTruth.org site from the Florida Department of Health uses a Wahi to talk to teens, parents and other audiences about the reality of the lives of teenagers. In addition to a direct "conversation," the site also includes dramatic vignettes in which characters then turn to the camera to ask what you would do or what you think. The branching is seamless, so it feels like a coherent whole.

With these ideas in the back of my mind, I was inspired by a short Choose Your Own Adventure story on Twitter by Jonah Peretti, and Fabio Gratton's subsequent comment on how the format could be used for health education. I set out to create a demo on Twitter to show how a Choose Your Own Adventure story for social marketing might play out. I focused primarily on traffic safety-related issues, as this genre of spy adventure usually involves people trying to get from one point to another without being caught. But I can think of many different issues that would lend themselves to this type of format: earthquake safety, sexual decision-making, flu prevention, and more. For nonprofits who are more interested in fundraising than behavior change, this format could still provide a way to engage potential donors or members and show why their involvement is needed.

A few caveats...

Twitter is not the ideal platform to use for this. The 140 character limitation makes it hard to advance the story and make it engaging. Plus, each time you click on a link, it automatically opens a new tab in your browser. I suggest you open the first link in a new window, so you can just close the whole window when you are done.
This demo was not created for a particular organization. If it were, the "learning pieces" would likely provide more information or links to the organization's resources for follow-up if desired.
This is just a quick and dirty demo. When designing a story to meet a project's behavior change objectives for a specific audience, much more time and strategic thought will go into it, so don't let the cheesy storyline obscure the format's potential. Ideally, the story would involve several different media elements, such as videos, mobile phones and puzzle-solving.

All that said, shall we play a game? Start here...

Guest Post: Pretty Please…Convincing Your Boss to Take the Plunge into Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:15:00 +0000

Not too long ago, I was providing technical assistance to a staff member at a local health department whose agency was not open to letting her use certain social media tools to engage with their community. I asked my Twitter network for ideas on resources that might help her make the case with a reluctant organization. Dawn Crawford, who is the Communications Director at the Colorado Children's Immunization Coalition (@ImmunizeCOKids on Twitter) very generously offered to share what she had learned, having been in a similar situation. After she emailed me the information to pass along, I asked her if I could repost it on my blog because it was full of pearls of wisdom that I thought would be useful to others, no matter what type of organization you work for. She wrote it up as a guest post here. Thanks so much, Dawn!

Pretty Please…Convincing Your Boss to Take the Plunge into Social Media

So you want to convince the boss to let you do social media for your organization. It’s something that every one who has ever engaged in social media had to do, at least once. It’s an important step because you do need some solid buy-in on this new communications strategy.

Bosses, Executive Directors, co-workers and all your social media doubters fear one of three things:

Loss of control of message and brand
Mean people will say mean things about you
There isn’t enough time to sustain your engagement

These fears are legitimate, but are also seeded in a lack of understanding of social media. Here are some quick answers to those concerns:

• Loss of control - The reality is engaging in social media is one of the best ways to regain control of your message and brand. With all the social media platforms you get to pick your profile picture and determine how you present yourself to your followers. Jumping into social media and securing your brand’s identity – Twitter ID, Facebook vanity URL, blog name – you can stop others from poaching your name.

• Meanies - Okay, here is a little secret…people are already saying mean things about you! And if you are not engaged in social media they are, in essence, saying it behind your back to all your friends. By monitoring your brand and organization in social media you can address these meanies and deal with them on a one-on-one basis.

• Time management - Time is the ONLY cost of social media, so value it. It is incredibly important to budget time for this communications tool. Take the time to make a plan about when you will engage, what kind of content you’ll share and how often you’ll interact with your followers/fans. This is a critical consideration to your success. Also remember it doesn’t have to control your life or be a priority over your other communications tactics. Just integrate these tools into all the other great stuff you are already doing.

Okay, now that you have three quick comebacks for those initial fears, let’s pile it on. There are reasons why you MUST get engaged in social media. Here is why it's so important for you to jump in:

• Social media IS the next business revolution - It's just like email; some people hoped email would just go away so we could send faxes forever. Well those people lost (thankfully) and now email is part of every successful business. Social media will be the same way in the coming years. If an organization is not engaged in social media they will look dated, out of touch and will be seen as having bad customer service.

• Connect with your community - Being part of social media gives your community (AKA your donors, customers, residents, volunteers, etc.) a portal to ask questions, get information and connect with you on their time and in the method that they want to connect. It’s great to drop into Facebook, check up on your sister’s latest adorable kid photo and find out about your favorite organization. Be where your community is and, trust me, they are using social media.

• Increase your traffic to your website – Social media is just one more way to leverage all that money you put into that fancy website. You can tease information from your Facebook or Twitter accounts to go to your website to learn more about your programs.

• Embrace controversy - If you do deal with a controversial issue it’s even more important for you to have a presence in social media. In my day job I work as Communications Director for the Colorado Children’s Immunization Coalition (CCIC), a pro-vaccine organization. I know controversy first hand. If you are controversial you have so much to say and to defend about your issue. Be brave and jump in the fray, your cause deserves it! For lots more on that check out this blog post.

• Get more tasty tidbits for leadership, donors and annual reports - You get so much anecdotal, honest comments, both good and bad, about your organization through your social media connections. Social media allows an organization to make an immediate impact and connect with real people. So incredibly invaluable and incredibly HARD to gather in any other communications tool…tried a survey lately?

Now that you have points on why you MUST be engaged in social media, let’s put on the frosting. These are some completely new ways that social media will improve your organization’s brand that is hard to do with traditional communications and development strategies:

• Find new people to support your cause for FREE – Yes, I said it FREE. You can target new people and experiment with difference audiences for FREE. Engaging in social media is WAY cheaper than buying a list or attending community events. Just figure out where your audience is and start posting.

• Get the attention of key influencers – You can use social media strategically to get introduced to funders, influential organizations and important people. At CCIC, we have been able to elevate our presence beyond Colorado to a national level with lots of targeted Twitter relationships. We've gotten the attention of national organizations and the CDC.

• Connect with traditional media – You can create real relationship with reporters online. Not only can you send them direct messages with story pitches but they see all the information you spew out then pick and choose on what stories they want to cover.

• Attract the elusive blogger – Bloggers are the next newsies. These are influential people who are not going anywhere. Comment on their posts, find their Twitter feeds and get to know them. Form a tight bond and they might even let you submit a guest post. At CCIC, we've created relationship and got posts/guest posts on influential blogs including Discover Magazine Blogs and other blogs around the world.

• Do something completely new – Use this new environment to experiment. It’s just your time that you are gambling with. We did this really good "feel good" campaign over Thanksgiving which allowed parents to give thanks for their healthy kids - see the results.

For more tips on how to get engaged in social media, developing content, saving time and dealing with those meanies, check out my social media presentations.

So, are there more fears floating around out there? Is there another way you helped convince your boss to let your engage in social media? I want to hear about it!

Social Marketing University in DC

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:14:00 +0000

The next Social Marketing University training is coming to Washington, DC on January 11-13, 2010. If you're interested in learning the fundamentals of social marketing to bring about health, social or environmental behavior change, this is the course!

The training is for people working at nonprofits, government agencies, PR/marketing agencies or others who want to build knowledge and skills for building an effective social marketing strategy. If you're already familiar with social marketing but want to learn about how to use social media within a social marketing program, you have the option of just attending the last half-day, which is the Next Generation Social Marketing Seminar.

This course is being co-sponsored by the Public Health Communication & Marketing Program at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. The agenda will include a social marketing case study presented by the program's director, Doug Evans.

For more information about SMU and to register, see the Social Marketing University information page. If you register before December 11, you will get a $100 discount. You can also receive additional discounts when more than one person from the same organization registers, or if you are a student.

As a reader of my blog, you will get an additional $75 off on top of the other discounts by using the discount code 'BLOG'.

I hope I'll see you there!

The Tip Jar - 10/15/09

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:59:00 +0000

Here are some assorted bits and pieces I've collected for your reading pleasure:

Starting next week I'll be offering a new webinar series on Social Media for Social Marketers. The four 60-minute webinars (at 11 am Pacific time) are:

October 22 - Designing a Social Media Strategy for Change
October 29 - Blogging and Beyond: Tools to Build Your Movement
November 12 - Twitteracy for Social Marketers
November 19 - Monitoring and Evaluating Social Media

Social Marketing University Online

Recently, more attention is being paid to applying design thinking to social marketing; in other words, how can we design the environment or product to make the desired behavior the most natural and easy choice? The best resource I have found in thinking through how to apply a design approach to behavior change is Dan Lockton's Design with Intent Toolkit. With lots of examples and different angles to consider, it's a great introduction to the discipline. I found it so helpful, in fact, that I created a companion worksheet to go along with it: the Design Approach for Behavior Change Worksheet.

If you haven't seen Franke James' visual essay about an event that brought Malcolm Gladwell and Mark Kingwell together to discuss social change, you'll find it a treat for your eyes as well as your brain.

The UK's Ingenious Group is sponsoring the first-ever Global Social Marketing Awards. For-profit and nonprofit organizations can enter in categories like Best Global Social Marketing Campaign, Most Effective Strategic Partnership, Most Effective Use of Budget, and more. Finalists will be announced soon, with winners receiving awards in December. This is a great idea, but with the entry fees at £175 (~$280) per category entry, it's a bit too pricey for any organization but a for-profit agency to enter, greatly limiting the candidates to choose from. I'd love to see awards like these done with no barriers to entry, with campaigns nominated and voted on by their social marketing peers. Perhaps it's an idea for the Global Social Marketing Association to consider once it gets up and running.

A couple of weeks ago, the "Save the Boobs" campaign from ReThink Breast Cancer got people buzzing about whether it was okay to use sex to get men interested in the issue of breast cancer (my answer was yes, but this ad was so poorly done from a behavior change point of view that it would be fairly ineffective). Soon after it came out, a group called HCD Research conducted a MediaCurves study to quantitatively measure the responses of men and women to this ad. Not surprisingly, men and women had very different reactions in whether they thought it was appropriate and in the emotions it evoked. The data confirms what seems obvious, though the lack of any clear objective or call to action means the high self-reported "effectiveness" score is fairly meaningless.

What do you get when you cross Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog with a 1970s Chuck Norris movie and a "Got Milk?" ad? Something like the Battle for Milkquarious - a 20-minute web-only "rock opera" created by the California Milk Processor Board that showcases the power of milk in an entertaining way. While some question whether this type of branded entertainment gets its point across adequately, I think it's a great (but cheesy) example for how social marketers could adapt this format for various issues. A more serious example is the In the Moment web series, created by the City of West Hollywood and the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, which plays like a gay version of Melrose Place and incorporates HIV prevention information into the entertainment-first format.

If you're interested in learning more about this approach, check out Johns Hopkins School of Public Health's free OpenCourseware resources on Entertainment Education for Behavior Change.

And finally, a huge congratulations to fellow social marketing blogger Alex Rampy (SocialButterfly), who just got married to the man of her dreams. May they have a lifetime of happiness together!

Photo: samk

We Can't Afford to Lose the National Center for Health Marketing

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:09:00 +0000

When the new director of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden, took his position in early June, it was inevitable that he would make some changes -- perhaps even some big changes. I believe I speak for many social marketers in saying we were very hopeful that health marketing (the CDC's name for social marketing) would fare well in the new administration.

Unfortunately, I have just found out that the National Center for Health Marketing (NCHM) is slated to be eliminated. What this means exactly for the practice of health marketing within the CDC is unclear, but it bodes poorly for the field of social marketing overall.

On the heels of the NCHM's highly successful Third National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media (NCHCMM), which just brought together one thousand professionals who are using these tools to address disparate health issues from across the spectrum of the CDC's purview, this news raises a big question: What will be the future of the conference, which serves a different role in the US social marketing community from other professional events? This most recent conference, in mid-August, raised the profile of the CDC as an innovator and enabler of organizations and agencies across the country (and beyond) on the cutting edge of social marketing initiatives.

After the NCHM has made so much progress in advancing the field of social marketing and integrating these methods into public health practice, it would be a giant step backwards to lose this bastion of expertise and have its staff dispersed. We need only look at the UK's National Social Marketing Centre to see the approach getting the prominence within government that it deserves as a tool that works for prevention. The US needs to be a leader in social marketing, and this will knock us from that position.

While the fledgling social marketing association is not quite in position to address this issue as a unified voice for our field, those of us who care about social marketing should individually make our opinions known to Dr. Frieden to ensure that social marketing will continue to play a prominent role in the work of the CDC. I believe this is best achieved through a focal point of expertise like the NCHM that can implement best practices throughout the agency and host events like the NCHCMM conference. Barring that, I hope that Dr. Frieden somehow comes up with an even better alternative.

What are your ideas for how we can best address this issue as a field?

The Path to Health Marketing Collaboration

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:26:00 +0000

When's the last time someone wrote a superhero comic about people in your profession? Sure, if you're a reporter, nuclear scientist or even a reclusive millionaire, you're used to this type of thing. But we health marketing types are usually the ones on the development side of the media, not the target audience. So I'm sure you'll be as excited as I was to discover that my longtime blog friend Fard Johnmar of Envision Solutions and the HealthCareVox blog has created both a fun set of different types of media to draw people like us in, and a more serious project that underlies it.

His mission is to bring together people who work in health marketing communications across disciplines so we can learn from each other. He calls this the Path of the Blue Eye -- a rather zen-sounding name with accompanying mantras that help us do our jobs more effectively.

Fard graciously agreed to share more information about the origins of the project and its different components with my readers via an email interview:

What spurred you to create the Path of the Blue Eye?

I was motivated to develop the Path of the Blue Eye project in response to two statements, both of which begin with the words “I wish.” They are:

I wish I knew that.
I wish we had a place to collect this information.

Over the years, I’ve learned about beneficial data, case studies and other info that would be useful to people across the health marketing communications industry. I often share my knowledge in conversations with pharma marketers, public health experts, social marketers and others. Many times, I find that people are not aware of interesting and successful campaigns taking place in industry segments they do not work in. For example, people in pharmaceutical marketing are sometimes not knowledgeable about campaigns launched by government agencies that leverage social technologies. After our conversations, people will sometimes nod their heads and say: “I wish I knew that.”

In addition, I have had many conversations about how we need a place where people can quickly and easily share information with their peers – especially with those working in other parts of the health marketing communications industry. They say: "I wish I we had a place to collect this information."

The Path of the Blue Eye project is designed to grant each of these wishes by:

Fostering knowledge sharing across health marketing communications industry segments and silos.
Providing people with tools they can use to quickly share interesting information with others working in the industry from around the world.

The key word here is interdisciplinary. We are trying to reach across silos and centers of practice rather than working within them.

How does this project fit in with the work you have been doing with Envision Solutions?

The mission of Envision Solutions is to help health marketing communications pros become more efficient and successful. I think the Path of the Blue Eye project helps us to achieve this objective.

Can you tell us about the different components of this project and how they fit together? How will you phase them in?

The core of the project will be an online collaboration hub we are currently building. It will enable people in health marketing communications to:

Quickly access and share data, case studies, news articles, blog posts and other content relevant to the field.
Ask and answer questions from their peers.

Currently we are the pre-launch phase of the project. We are leveraging the comic, Facebook, Twitter, e-mail and other communications channels to spread the word about the project and attract a diverse group of people who believe in what we are trying to accomplish. I am happy to say that (as of this writing), nearly 80 people have “joined” the project via e-mail, Facebook and Twitter. We launched Path of the Blue Eye about a week ago, so I’m very pleased with the progress thus far.

In phase II, we will invite a select group of people to help us conduct a series of road tests on the collaboration hub to help us iron out any final kinks in the system. After this, we’ll launch the hub and begin our work in earnest.

I’m also very excited that we’ve been able to develop some strong partnerships with prominent organizations and businesses over the last few months. They have agreed to help strengthen the hub by providing information to the Path of the Blue Eye community when it launches.

How would you define the "Path of the Blue Eye?”

The Path of the Blue Eye is represented in the comic by a series of six mantras. These represent habits and activities we believe will help people forging careers in the health marketing communications industry achieve success.

Who are the main groups you’d like to reach and what are some of the ways people can become involved with this project?

We are trying to reach a diverse range of people working in all areas of the global health marketing communications industry. Everyone is welcome, including social marketers, public relations professionals, advertisers, pharmaceutical/biotech marketers, public health communicators, academics and others.

Given the current intense interest in social media it is important to note that the site wlll not be focused solely on social communications channels and techniques. Rather, we want people practicing in all areas of the field to feel comfortable participating in and contributing to the hub.

Currently, people can participate in the project by:

Showing their support for the project by joining our Facebook group, Twitter community or signing up for our e-mail list.
Spreading the word about the project to their friends and colleagues.
Considering becoming contributing or guest authors on the project’s blog Walking the Path. We are looking to build a blog that features a diverse range of perspectives from people around the world. A few people have accepted our invitation to participate, but we are always looking for more authors. Currently, guest authors are helping to produce a series of blog posts focusing on what collaboration means to them.

Once the hub launches, people will have other ways they can contribute to the project.

I love the comic book! I’m sure it’s the first time that health marketers have been featured as superheroes. What was your thinking behind using this medium? Can we expect to see this as an ongoing series?

I’m really glad you like the comic! I decided to commission the comic because I wanted to:

o Create a mythology focusing on the work of health marketing communications pros. We are often behind the scenes, creating campaigns for others, so I wanted to celebrate what we do.
o Attract a broad range of people to the project.
o Encourage us to have fun and enjoy the work we do each day

I also want to use the comic to expose more people in our industry to transmedia storytelling techniques. There’s a lot more going on with the comic than meets the eye, so I encourage people to dive deeper by participating in the SMS component of the project. Not many people have accepted our invitation yet, but I hope this changes in the coming weeks. I also hope people enjoy the comic’s soundtrack.

I hope we’ll be able to produce future issues of the comic. If people want more we’ll continue the story.

How would you like to see the Path of the Blue Eye evolve over time? What would it ideally look like five years from now?

Ultimately, I’d like to see the project evolve into a strong, self-sustaining, diverse, interconnected global community of health marketing communications pros.

Five years from now, I hope that the community will have become a go-to resource for people trying to improve their skills and develop better health marketing communications campaigns. We want to help people become better at what they do. If we achieve this, I think the project will be successful.

***
I wish Fard great success with this project, and I am excited about being part of it as well. I hope you will also consider participating in some way, as the whole profession will benefit as more people get involved. We can all walk the path together, which makes getting over the hills much easier.

I Get Around

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:23:00 +0000

John Haydon invited me to share with his readers how I "rock the web" on his excellent blog on social media. In my guest post, I talk about some of the tools I use to take control of my time online. Take a look at the other posts on his blog for insights on how nonprofits can use social media effectively - John is a great resource (and an awesome musician).

My other favorite nonprofit social media blogger, Beth Kanter, also put up a guest post from me while she's getting settled from her cross-country move. This one is an oldie but goodie from me on how to select your target audience: should you pick the low-hanging fruit or the hard-to-reach but bigger fruit at the top of the tree?

If you're attending the CDC's National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media in August, I've set up a Ning social network for the attendees to connect with each other before, during and after the conference. So far 36 of us have set up profiles there. It's an easy way to get to know people with similar interests before you get to the conference and are faced with a crowd of 900 people.

People are signing up for the Social Marketing University fundamentals webinars from all over the world. It's a great way to learn about social marketing from wherever you are, especially if you are not able to travel to an SMU training like the Advanced Course coming up in Berkeley in September. But you can also do both! Don't forget to use the discount code 'BLOG' to get 10% off the registration fee for the Advanced Course.

Photo Credit: Jeremy Brooks

Marketing Games for Health

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:00:00 +0000

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation invited me to write a guest post on its Pioneering Ideas blog, along with several other people who are investigating how games can be used to promote health. This guest blogger series is tied into the 2009 Games for Health Conference, which happened a couple of weeks ago, as well as a recent report from the Sesame Workshop’s Joan Ganz Cooney Center, which looks at how video games can be a positive force for children's health.

The question they posed for us to answer was:

"There is a growing consensus that digital games can be deployed to support learning and behavior change for positive health outcomes among children. What do you think needs to be done to increase the use of digital games for this purpose?”

In my guest post, I look at the question from a marketing perspective to think about how to increase the acceptability of health games and to encourage their development and use. My post will be up on Monday at the Pioneering Ideas Blog. ~~(I'm on my way out of the country for a week, but will update with the specific link to my post as soon as I can.)~~ I hope you'll take a look at it and leave a comment with your feedback and perspective.

Upcoming: Social Marketing University Advanced Course and Webinars

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

It's that time again - time to announce the next session of Social Marketing University! Many of you know that I have been offering SMU trainings since 2006 as a 2-1/2 day introduction to using social marketing to promote health and social issues.

This year, taking into account many people's requests for the next level of social marketing training beyond the basics, I will be offering the Social Marketing University Advanced Course. This 2-day training is for people who are already familiar with the fundamentals of social marketing who are looking for new ideas and insights, including those who have taken previous SMU trainings in what I am now calling the Foundations Course.

The Advanced Course will be offered on September 14-15, 2009 in Berkeley, CA. We'll focus on topics like audience segmentation techniques, real-world research and evaluation, effective approaches to behavior change and will spend a full day on using online social media strategically. For more information, pricing and registration, see the SMU information page.

Don't be disappointed if you can't make it to Berkeley this time, or if you would like social marketing training but are not quite ready for the Advanced Course. I will also be offering a series of four webinars on social marketing fundamentals through Social Marketing University Online during the summer. You can attend this series to prepare for the Advanced Course, or just to bone up on individual social marketing topics of interest to you.

These 60-minute webinars will happen every other Wednesday at 12 noon PDT in the months leading up to the Advanced Course. The schedule is as follows:

July 22, 2009 - Change for Good: Using Social Marketing to Make a Difference
August 5, 2009 - Building An Effective Social Marketing Strategy
August 19, 2009 - Creating Social Marketing Messages That Work
September 2, 2009 - Social Media for Social Marketers

Take a look at the SMU Online information page for detailed descriptions of the webinars and pricing (4 for the price of 3!).

I'm also happy to offer a 10% special discount off the Advanced Course for my blog readers (enter discount code "BLOG"), and I hope you will join me at one or more of these events!

Keep up with the latest on SMU by joining the Facebook Fan Page or following the @SocialMktgU Twitter account.

@Replies, Damn @Replies and Statistics

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 25 May 2009 06:21:00 +0000

This post will be somewhat of a Twitter inside baseball topic - not what I usually write about - so if you are not interested in Twitter arcana, you might want to skip this one.

Those of us on Twitter could not have missed the uproar that happened a couple of weeks ago when Twitter management decided to make a "small settings update" to its service by eliminating an option they said was "undesirable and confusing." This change removed the option to see the one side of the conversations people you follow are having with people you don't. Now you can only see these "half conversations" (called @replies) if you follow both people. Sounds like a small thing, but those of us who had chosen to see all @replies are now missing out on interesting conversations, resources and the opportunity to discover new people.

Fairly quickly, word spread across Twitter about the change and a revolt took place as people started tagging their protests with "#fixreplies," which became the top trending topic on Twitter for a few days. After first seeming just clueless about how people use their service, Twitter offered a non-solution posing as a fix and then flat-out said they will not be bringing the option back for technical reasons. The reason from their post:

Even though only 3% of all Twitter accounts ever changed this setting away from the default, it was causing a strain and impacting other parts of the system.

Okay, given the millions of new users that have come on board in the past month or two in the wake of Oprah and Ashton Kutcher's Twitter publicity stunts, it makes sense that the system is strained. But, having been on Twitter since around the end of 2007, I found it hard to believe that only 3% of the other users had touched their @reply settings. And given the extent of the outcry, either this was a very vocal 3% or a lot of people were jumping on the protest bandwagon even though the change did not affect them at all.

More likely, this was a disingenuous statistic chosen by Twitter to make their point, but that does not give the whole story. I suspect that they are counting 3% of anyone who has ever created an account on Twitter - including those who try it out for a day and never come back. A recent Nielsen study found that 60% of those who sign up do not return the following month (though this statistic does not take into account the many who sign up at Twitter.com but actively use TweetDeck or another client application). What if they looked at the percentage of active Twitter users (the people who should actually matter) -- particularly those who have been on the service for a while? Would the percentage change?

This question nagged at me for a while until I decided to do a quick survey to see if my suspicions were right. I created a four-question survey, which asked the following questions:

How long have you been actively using Twitter?
How many people do you follow on Twitter?
Before Twitter took away the option, how was your @Replies option set?
How has the loss of the @Replies option affected your Twitter experience?

I sent out a tweet asking people to complete the survey and to retweet it (repost in Twitter parlance) to their followers as well. My objective was to send it far and wide on Twitter so that it was not just my own Twitter followers responding, but a wide swath of users across the service. The result was that people who were following my account retweeted the post 28 times, with a subsequent total of 118 retweets dispersed around different social circles. I ended up with 402 total responses to the survey.

I will be the first to admit that this sample may not necessarily be statistically representative of all active Twitter users (though if it were, the sample size gives us a 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level). Respondents were not chosen randomly, and the people who decided to participate may be more likely to have a strong opinion on the topic. Nonetheless, I think it may be helpful to take a look at the results because this segment of Twitter user has been strongly impacted by the change. (The results for each question can be seen here. I'm happy to share my full statistical analyses as well if you'd like to see them.)

Most respondents had been actively using Twitter for 3-12 months (40%), with 36% on for more than a year and 24% for less than three months. I figured that the longer someone had been using Twitter, the more likely they are to have played around with the options to see what they prefer rather than leaving the default of only seeing @replies when they follow both people.

A vast majority (63%) follow between 50-500 people on Twitter. Next is 501-5000 follows at 24%, fewer than 50 with 12%, and only 2% follow more than 5000. I hypothesized that those who were following more people would probably not notice much of a change in their cluttered feed.

Now, the kicker here is that before the option was taken away, 63% of the respondents had chosen to show all @replies for the people they followed -- much higher than the 3% cited by Twitter. Those who had the default selected - to show only @replies between people they follow - were 19%, plus another 17% who said that they didn't know what option was selected (and presumably hadn't changed the default), for a total of 36%. And only 1% had chosen the option not to see any @replies unless directed at them.

Finally, 57% said that the loss of the @replies option had affected their Twitter experience for the worse. These were presumably those who had the option taken away from them, but could also be people who did not want to see all @replies for people who started making their replies visible to everyone, such as by putting a character before the "@" symbol or embedding the @reply name within or at the end of the tweet. Only 5% said their experience was better and 39% reported no change (close to the 36% who were already set at the default option).

I also ran some chi-square stats to see how these variables affected each other and created some nifty charts at Chartle.net. Here's what I found (only reporting the statistically significant correlations at p<.05): The number of people that respondents were following on Twitter correlated with how long they had been on the service, at the highest and lowest following numbers. But most people - no matter how long they had been on - were comfortably in the 50-500 range.

Users who had been on Twitter for a longer time were more likely to choose the "show all @replies" option, with 72.2% of old-timers who had been on for at least a year and 65.2% of those on 3-12 months. Still, almost half (46.3%) of the newbies on for less than three months also selected that option.

Not surprisingly, given that time on Twitter and number following are correlated, the more people a respondent followed, the more likely they were to select the "show all @replies" option (<50=41.7%, 500="64.1%," 5000="72.6%),"
The quality of respondents' experience on Twitter after the policy change, as you would expect, depended on which @reply option they had selected before all defaulted to showing only mutual @replies. For those with the "show all" option, 78.2% said their experience is worse, the direct opposite of the other two options (show only mutual=72.9%, show none=75.0%). The correlation between number following and quality of current experience on Twitter also mirrors the distribution of @replies option selected.

***

So what does this all mean? Even if this sample is not representative of all Twitter users, it does represent a substantial segment of users who are not as happy with their experience on the site since the option was taken away. Twitter would be smart to pay attention to this group, which is not only comprised of crotchety old-timers and "power users." To avoid losing these disgruntled users, Twitter needs to come up with a way to bring back seeing all @replies in a way that they can live with. At the very least, Twitter needs to be honest about the percentage of its actual active users (not including abandoned accounts) who were using the "show all @replies" option. Whether it's closer to 3% or 63%, by dismissing those who were upset by the #fixreplies kerfuffle as a tiny group of whiners, Twitter increased user dissatisfaction and the likelihood of defection should a service come along that works harder to meet its users' needs.

UPDATE (6/1/09):
New research that has just come out from Harvard from a random sample of 300,000 Twitter users in May 2009 shows that the top 10% of Twitter users account for over 90% of tweets. And the median number of lifetime tweets per Twitter users is one. So there is a huge difference between the typical Twitter account and an active Twitter account.

This backs up my survey findings that many more active Twitter users were affected by the recent @replies option change than Twitter was willing to admit. To say that only 3% of users had selected the "see all @replies" option was extremely deceptive when it turns out that 90% or so of the total Twitter accounts are not even being actively used. Those who do use their accounts tend to opt to see all @replies. Twitter should not be able to so easily dismiss this loud, vocal majority.

Image Credit: monettenriquez

Guest Post: The Slave Next Door - Ron Soodalter

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:58:00 +0000

Many of you know that human trafficking and modern-day slavery are the issues I care most about and have volunteered the most time and energy. That's why I was honored to be approached for a guest post by author Ron Soodalter, who has just written a book with Kevin Bales, president of Free the Slaves, called The Slave Next Door: Human Trafficking and Slavery in America Today. Though awareness is becoming more widespread, far too many people still believe that this is not an issue in the US. Awareness is the first step toward action, so though this post is not specifically about social marketing, I hope that may be the next step we can take together.

A Blight on the Nation: Slavery in Today’s America
by Ron Soodalter

The American humorist Will Rogers once said, “It ain’t that we’re so dumb; it’s just that what we know ain’t so.”

Certain things we know to be true. We know that the South kept slaves, and the North fought a righteous war of liberation. We know that the slave trade was legal right up to the Civil War. We know that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves, and that the United States has been slavery-free ever since. These things we know – and none of it is true.

On the other hand, most of us do not know that slavery not only exists throughout the world today; it flourishes. Slavery is legal nowhere, yet it is practiced everywhere. With an estimated 27 million people in bondage worldwide, it is the second or third most lucrative criminal enterprise of our time, after drugs, and maybe guns. More than twice as many people are in bondage in the world today as were taken in chains during the entire 350 years of the African Slave Trade. In seeking to place blame, we’re tempted to point to the “emerging nations” as the culprits, whereas in fact slavery exists in such “civilized” countries as England, France, Spain, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, China…and the United States. Most Americans are clueless that slavery is alive and more than well right here, thriving in the dark, and practiced in many forms in places you’d least expect.

As a student of history, I’d always assumed that slavery ended with the Thirteenth Amendment. Some years back, I had written nearly an entire book on the pre-Civil War slave trade when I stumbled on an account of slavery – in present-day America! My first response - a common one, as it turns out - was denial: “No way. Slavery has had no place here since the time of Lincoln.”

Only after extensive research did I discover that slavery has always existed on this continent, from the days of its European discovery right up to the present day. Christopher Columbus enslaved the Taino Indians, setting a precedent that was followed by every European power to claim land in the New World. Slavery became the social and economic order. After the Civil War, and for decades right up to the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, planters practiced a form of debt bondage known as peonage, binding workers and their families to the land in an unending cycle of slavery. For over sixty years, our own government has enabled worker abuse and slavery through the mismanagement of its “guest worker” program. And now, with the global population more than tripled since World War II, and with national borders collapsing around the world, people - in their desperate quest for a way to survive – have become easy targets for human traffickers. And once again, America is a prime destination.

So how many slaves are we talking about? According to a U.S. State Department study, some 14,500 to 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked into the United States from at least 35 countries and enslaved each year. Some victims are smuggled into the United States across the Mexican and Canadian borders; others arrive at our major airports daily, carrying either real or forged papers. The old slave ship of the 1800s has been replaced by the 747. Victims come here from Africa, Asia, India, Latin America, and the former Soviet Republic. Overwhelmingly, they come on the promise of a better life, with the opportunity to work and prosper in America. Many come in the hope of earning enough money to support or send for their families. In order to afford the journey, they fork over their life savings, and go into debt to people who make promises they have no intention of keeping, and instead of opportunity, when they arrive they find bondage. They can be found – or more accurately, not found – in all 50 states, working as farmhands, domestics, sweatshop and factory laborers, gardeners, restaurant and construction workers, and victims of sexual exploitation. These people do not represent a class of poorly paid employees, working at jobs they might not like. They exist specifically to work, they are unable to leave, and are forced to live under the constant threat and reality of violence. By definition, they are slaves. Today, we call it human trafficking, but make no mistake: It is the slave trade.

Nor are native-born Americans immune from slavers; many are stolen or enticed from the streets of their own cities and towns. Some sources, including the federal government, estimate in the hundreds of thousands the number of U.S. citizens – primarily children – at risk of being caught in slavery annually. Although these figures may be inflated, the precise number of slaves in the United States, whether trafficked in from other countries or enslaved from our own population, is simply not known. The simple truth is, we’re looking at a crime that lives in the shadows; it’s hard to count what you can’t find.

What is particularly infuriating is the fact that this is a crime that, as a rule, goes unpunished. For the moment, let’s accept the government’s estimate of about 17,000 foreign nationals trafficked into slavery in the United States per year; coincidentally there are also about 17,000 people murdered in the US each year. The national success rate in solving murder cases is about 70%; around 11,000 murders are “cleared” annually. But according to the US government’s own numbers, the annual percentage of trafficking and slavery cases solved is less than 1%. In 2007, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division obtained 103 convictions for human trafficking, with an average sentence of 9 years.

And to further complicate matters, when they are rescued, survivors often deny their situation. There are several reasons for this: the language barrier, a deep sense of shame, fear for their lives and those of their families in their country of origin, and a sense of obligation to pay their debt. In addition, the traffickers program them to fear the police and immigration officials. And in some instances, they come to identify with their keepers.

We don’t yet know how President Obama will respond to the human trafficking crisis; it’s too soon to tell. But we do know that the response under the Bush Administration was inadequate on any number of levels. In a speech on trafficking, Bush once stated, “We're beginning to make good, substantial progress. The message is getting out: We’re serious. And when we catch you, you’ll find out we’re serious. We’re staying on the hunt.” Strong words. But the unvarnished truth is, with less than 1% of the bad guys apprehended, and less than 1% of the victims freed, it sounds a lot more like spin than fact; meanwhile, the flow of human “product” into America continues practically unchecked.

This is the kind of knowledge you can’t “unlearn”; the only question is, what do you do with the information once you have it? It’s a question we must all address for ourselves. We tend to think of our America as the country where slavery has no place; the dire truth is, we are pretty far from freedom, and it will take a lot of work and dedication – by the government, and by us - to make it so.

The Tip Jar - 5/10/09

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Sun, 10 May 2009 13:00:00 +0000

It's been a while since I've done one of my Tip Jar round-ups of interesting links and pieces of information here on Spare Change. If you follow my Twitter feed (@Nedra) or links I bookmark on Delicious, you may have seen these and many other useful items already; in fact, I see so many great resources every day that it's hard to pick just a few to share.

Happy Mother's Day to all of you who are blessed to have the world's best and hardest job!

Show your support for the effort spearheaded by Craig Lefebvre to finally get a professional social marketing association off the ground. Join the 100 or so people who have signed it so far by adding your name to the ePetition that lays out the process by which this organization will be formed. I've written about the need for a professional association, which has been a long time coming. Kudos to Craig and the others who took the reins to make this happen!

The CDC's 3rd annual National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media will be happening in Atlanta, GA, August 11-13. I'm on the planning committee, and am very excited about the quality of the sessions we are going to be offering. Bill Novelli has just been confirmed as a keynote speaker, and we'll be featuring other high-level speakers yet to be announced. Like last year, I will be offering one of the pre-conference half day workshops, this time on building a social media strategy. CDC eHealth Marketing staff will be conducting an introductory-level social media workshop as well. I hope to see you at the conference!

Thanks to Andre Blackman of Pulse + Signal, I found the healthGAMERS blog that focuses on games designed to promote health. Some games focus on education, some are geared toward motivating behavior change, and others actually require healthy activities to occur as part of the game. Andre writes about the Stop Swine Flu game that makes it easy for kids to visualize how easily germs spread. If you are interested in learning more about this field, the Games for Health Conference will be happening June 11-12 in Boston.

Speaking of flu, Advertising Age published an excellent article offering ten things marketers can learn from the CDC's response to the H1N1 flu outbreak. These lessons include items like: empower those who want to help others, make search simple and accessible, syndicate the message and more. The CDC has done many things right in its communications efforts, and even though the efforts are still evolving, we can learn from and improve upon what we do.

If you work for a marketing firm, you may be able to relate to the episodes of a new comedy web series called Groupthink. The short videos follow a pair of friends as they start their firm, invent new buzzwords, and conduct focus groups for wacky products.

I've recently found some fun new blogs to follow for quick infographic and design insights:

Chart Porn
New Math
Your Logo Makes Me Barf
And some older favorites just in case you didn't already know about these:

Take a look at the Center of Excellence for Public Sector Marketing's new Guide to Branding in the Public and Not-For-Profit Sectors. Branding is an often misunderstood concept, but this guide does a good job of explaining what branding is and how to build your program's brand.

If you want to use storytelling to get your messages out in an effective way online, A Storied Career blog (another new favorite of mine) posted an excellent round-up of a dozen web-based storytelling tools. I would also add to these a site that my 11-year old son uses regularly called Bitstrips, which makes it incredibly easy to create professional-looking comics.

Gennefer Snowfield (@gennefer) interviewed me about social marketing on the TriplePundit blog. It's a general introduction to social marketing and its relationship to cause marketing. Leave a comment and let me know what you think!

Photo Credit: Dain Sandoval

Communicating the Flu

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:18:00 +0000

The tiny H1N1 virus pictured above (the influenza formerly known as "Swine")* has brought me back to this blog after a long hiatus. As those of you who have read this blog for a while know, I have written quite a bit about pandemic preparedness from a social marketing perspective both here at Spare Change and as an invited blogger on the HHS Pandemic Flu Leadership Blog in 2007.

At that time, a pandemic seemed like a far-off risk, though we knew it was more a question of 'when' than 'if.' Since then, HHS and CDC have been working hard to increase preparedness at the national, state and local levels. From the rapid and effective response we've seen so far, it appears that they have done good work in that arena. Health departments and school districts in the US, and especially in Mexico City, have been quick to identify cases, isolate them and implement social distancing measures to keep people away from each other.

But I'd hoped we would have been further along prior to a pandemic in the areas of public awareness and preparedness. I'm currently involved in the social media piece of a CDC contract that is building grassroots coalitions to increase pandemic preparedness at the community level. As you can imagine, this project has been refocused to be H1N1-specific, and the timeline has been greatly accelerated. Our biggest concern, up until a week or so ago, was 'how do we get people to understand what a pandemic is and why they should care?' Suddenly, awareness is no longer an issue. But that also means that we are dealing with many other challenges that did not previously exist.

I believe that the CDC and WHO have done an excellent job of getting information out about the virus, its victims and how to prevent the spread of the flu. They are providing straightforward facts without hype and avoiding alarmism in their communications. The social media team has been especially innovative in providing online tools and maintaining an active presence on various online social media sites.

Unfortunately the 24-hour news machine, which by its nature needs to be constantly fed with new information, different angles on the same story, and attention-grabbing visuals, sank its teeth into the pandemic story and ran with it. Constant stories about new victims, pictures of people wearing masks, and ridiculous overreactions like that of Egypt, which slaughtered all of the country's 300,000 pigs, overwhelmed the public. Even Vice President Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth and said that he advised his family to stay off airplanes and subways, going far beyond any recommendations given by the government and adding to the sense of panic (he later backtracked).

A backlash has been building against the perceived hysteria, which has created its own new problems. People with the sniffles are flooding emergency rooms and demanding to be screened for H1N1. Tamiflu and Purell are flying off the shelves. People are wearing masks when going out in public, even though the masks are designed more for preventing a sick person from spreading their illness rather than protection from the other direction. The result is that many people are afraid and are growing weary of having their guard up with no perceived benefit.

Luckily, it appears that for now, this H1N1 virus may not be the Big One. It's too early to know whether it will mutate and come back in a more virulent form, as the 1918 influenza virus did. And it's impossible to know what might have happened with it had precautions not been imposed from the very beginning. Greg Dworkin of the Flu Wiki does an excellent job of explaining how seemingly drastic measures at the beginning of a pandemic can make all the difference in the outcomes. But prevention gets no respect. It's really hard to get excited about something that didn't happen. Many people don't understand that the public health system has to act on the potential threat, not waiting to see how bad it will get before intervening. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Whichever way the body count goes, the government would not win with its critics. It will either be accused of overhyping the threat or it will be accused of not being prepared enough. Michael Coston captured this Catch-22 well in his post "Predicting the Unpredictable":

The more successful they are in containing this outbreak, or in mitigating its effects, the more criticism they will receive in the press for over-blowing the threat.

And when this pandemic comes and goes without too much incident, particularly in the US, people may become complacent the next time we find ourselves facing a nasty virus. The government is seen as the bureaucrats who cried wolf and important recommendations may be ignored.

So what do we need to be doing to take this situation into account as we develop our communication efforts around pandemic preparedness? I have some recommendations:

Build on the new awareness of pandemic flu to take people to the next level. HHS and the media have both done a good job of pushing handwashing, avoiding sneezing into hands, and staying home when sick. We can now move past the "what is pandemic flu" and go directly to "how can I prevent and prepare for a pandemic?"

We may have a window of opportunity for individuals and families to begin the process of gathering the supplies they would need in the case of an extended severe pandemic to survive at home sheltering in place. I think that HHS did a good thing by not emphasizing the need to stockpile food while we were in the thick of the beginning of the outbreak, thereby avoiding panic and shortages. But once the danger has passed, messages about slowly but steadily building up a supply of food, water and medical supplies must begin. (Here is an excellent pdf guide to pandemic preparedness and response.)

Complacency is a real danger. Messages should make the point that a severe pandemic remains a real possibility and that prevention measures kept this H1N1 virus in check. Parallels with the 1918 influenza virus, which started out relatively mild but returned in a second wave in a more virulent form, may illustrate the possible risks. In any case, the same good hygiene habits that prevent the spread of H1N1 will benefit people by keeping away seasonal flu as well and should be continued.

We must take care not to use fear-based messaging and imagery because this can lead to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness -- not useful emotions when trying to get people to take action. Messages should emphasize how being prepared puts you in control. During turbulent times, giving people steps they can take to prevent or mitigate problems makes them feel empowered and capable. That's what we need!

Government agencies need to avoid any perceptions that their decisions are being made based on politics rather than science. In chatting with an acquaintance who was at NIH during the 1976 Swine flu epidemic, I learned that he strongly advised against proceeding with making the vaccine public because of safety concerns. He was overruled in favor of political considerations; 25 people died and hundreds of others were paralyzed from the faulty vaccine. While some conspiracy theorists will find nefarious motivations in any government actions, don't give reasonable people cause to doubt the basis of your policies.

Emphasize that being prepared for a pandemic will benefit them for many other types of disasters as well. Many of the same recommendations for food, water and medical supplies apply for regional hazards like earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. It never hurts to be prepared, and often helps.

Continue to use social media to monitor what people are saying about pandemic flu-related issues. This can give you an idea of incorrect information or rumors that are being passed around, or the questions that keep coming up that need to be answered.

The government needs to be proactive about getting its messages out, beyond the news media. Television ads, entertainment education outreach, radio and outdoor media all could be used effectively to motivate people to prepare for another pandemic episode. Social media efforts can be expanded from primarily news coverage to help people learn more about preparedness activities.

The tone of the information needs to continue to be straightforward and factual, but emotionally appealing to various audiences. Right now the messages are very general, but they should be tailored to different key groups. If only we had a C. Everett Koop-style figure -- or at least a Surgeon General!

This will be a challenge. But on the bright side, we have a higher level of pandemic awareness than I ever thought possible. We need to take full advantage of this window of opportunity.

*Thanks to Michael Coston for that very cute name!

Image credit: CDC Influenza Laboratory

In the meantime...

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:16:00 +0000

I realize that it has been quite a while since I last updated this blog, and I am starting to accept that it may not happen again as soon as I'd prefer. So if you'd like to keep up with the latest social marketing resources I come across or just see what I'm up to, I encourage you to join me on my Twitter account. Lately 140 characters at a time is about all I can fit in! You can find me there as @Nedra, or you can subscribe to my Twitter stream with your RSS feed reader. (It's a mix of professional resources and commentary, conversations with other Twitter users and personal updates, so not all of the "tweets" may be of interest.)

I do intend to continue to use this blog as a base, and to post whenever I'm inspired. For the latest posts from my fellow social marketing bloggers, you can keep a watch on the Social Marketing Bloglines running down the left column of the blog, thanks to Craig Lefebvre. I also continue to post links to new social marketing resources in my Delicious account (also updated in the left sidebar).

I'm not going away - just using other tools to share information. I hope you'll join me so we can continue to learn together!

Get Hands-On With Me!

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:21:00 +0000

Over ten years ago, I saw a need among nonprofit and public agency staff for a book that would lead them through the process of developing a social marketing program. So often, health, social and environmental organizations decide they want to apply social marketing to the work that they are doing, but do not have the budget to hire a consultant or marketing firm and still have enough left to carry out the project. I decided to fill that gap in the field, and turned in the first draft of the chapters to the publisher in March 1998, just before my first child was born (it was like giving birth twice in a row!). In June of 1999, my book Hands-On Social Marketing: A Step-by-Step Guide was published by Sage Publications.

Since then, I've been gratified to find out that my book has been used by people all over the world to create social marketing programs, teach college and grad-level courses, and to overhaul how organizations carry out their activities directed toward positive behavior change. It's always exciting when someone tells me they have used my book and found it helpful.

But this blog post is not about promoting the book. Rather, I'm asking for your help. A lot has happened in social marketing -- and the world in general -- in the ten years since I wrote the book. I'm currently working on the next edition of the book, which will be updating everything that's outdated and changing chapters and worksheets around based on how my own practice has evolved over the course of a decade. I've certainly learned a lot since the book was published, and the field of social marketing has matured as well.

So now I'm reaching out to my target audience (you) to do some research to find out what you would like to see in the next edition. For those of you who have read and used the book, whether as a student or practitioner, please let me know your suggestions. What is most helpful about the book? What didn't work for you in practice, or was confusing? How can I make the book a better resource for you?

And even if you haven't read the book, please let me know what topics you are most interested in learning more about. This is a how-to book, so what parts of the social marketing process do you get stuck in? What topics do you want to know more about? What are the big questions that keep you up at night worrying about your social marketing program? And what would your ideal guidebook look like in terms of format?

Any input that you can give me (either in the comments or via email) would be incredibly helpful in making the ultimate product a book that can help you and others to change the world for good. Thank you in advance!

Taking Social Actions

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:30:00 +0000

I've been watching with interest the evolution of Social Actions, a relatively new service that helps you find things you can do right now for the causes you care about. The site aggregates "actionable opportunities" from 30 different social action-oriented sites like Change.org, Idealist.org, Kiva, DonorsChoose.org and others. With the proliferation of so many cause-related social networking sites, it's helpful to see everything in one place. The Social Actions Labs folks have also been putting together various web applications that help to spread the information farther, such as a widget to put on your website or blog that uses keywords to offer actions related to the topic of the webpage (see left sidebar) and a Twitter "Social Actions PSA feed" you can have post to your own Twitter account daily for your favorite cause.

So when fellow blogger Britt Bravo invited me, along with other nonprofit marketing bloggers, to help her help Social Actions to market and communicate its mission more effectively, I was happy to help. After looking over the website, here are some of my thoughts:

The focus needs to be centered on taking action -- that's what the mission is all about. But a look at the home page pulls me in many different directions. If I am a person wondering what I can do about my favorite cause, it should be obvious at a glance how to find that information. It took way too long for me to notice that the small search box at the top left that says "Find an action" is where I should start. The home page should be focused on the search box, with it being as easy to find as the box on Google's search page.

Nowhere do I see anything about the specific issues I care about -- just a lot about the features of Social Actions. The key to good marketing is looking at your product and communications from the viewpoint of your audience; answer their question "What's in it for me?" They have made a good start, with using the words "you" and "your" in a couple of places, and providing a menu of options as "I would like to..." Show examples of featured issues and related actions. Let me see what your application does for me, rather than just talking about it.

The home page is also missing the heart and emotion of why people come in the first place. They are passionate about getting involved, in making a difference. They don't necessarily care about "increasing the scope and impact of the citizen sector." They want to save a life, rescue the planet, help someone out of poverty... and they want to do it in 5 minutes or less. Emphasize the impact they can have, the ease of participating, and the range of choices they can use to find an action that's just right for them.

Even when I select the link that says "I would like to...Find ways to take action," I am confronted with four text-based choices that are still not entirely clear for the person who is just looking for how to help stray cats. The language under the option "Find an action by location, cause or keyword" is far too techie for regular people: "Our mashup aggregates actionable opportunities from 19 social action platforms." How about just "Find an action you can take for your favorite cause"? (And the number of social action platforms listed ranges anywhere from 19 to 30, depending on the page!)

Help your users continue to use and spread the word about Social Actions once they have been impressed by the range of action options for their cause. On every search results page, offer an easy-to-find RSS feed so that people can learn about the latest action related to their issue immediately. Offer the code to add a widget to their blog, Facebook profile, or MySpace page with actions on the cause for which they just searched. Add a link that says "Got Twitter?" with instructions on how to use the Social Actions Twitterfeed. Hand it to them rather than making them search your site for these tools.

And finally, focus on your mission and whom you are serving. Some of the options on the home page let you look at the nonprofit jobs and internships board, hire a nonprofit consultant, and help foundations develop a micro-philanthropy strategy. Social Actions seems to have a split personality, unsure whether it is serving the individual activist or the nonprofit sector. These two missions can coexist, but not on the same web page. There should be a separate site or section of the existing website for nonprofit professionals or it gets too confusing. Each group has very different communication needs.

I hope that using the Social Actions website as a case study helps you look at your own website with a new eye. Do you have any other suggestions to help Social Actions?

Technorati Tags: Social Actions, nonprofit, marketing, website

Too Much Information?

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Knowledge is power. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I'm trying to reconcile these two ideas to decide whether learning my personal genetic code would do more good than harm.

I read today about Google founder Sergei Brin's discovery that he carries a genetic mutation that greatly increases his chances of developing Parkinson's Disease. Brin's wife, Anne Wojcicki, is the co-founder of a company, 23andMe, which offers personal genetic testing. For just $399 (which makes it well within reach for many people), the company will analyze a saliva sample to provide an in-depth report on how your genetics influence more than 80 diseases, health-related conditions and traits. You can learn what is encoded on your DNA and what it might mean for your current and future health.

Do you want to know whether you are predisposed to have a heart attack or develop breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer? Are you destined to be bald? Have gallstones? Or live a long life? Would you live your life differently if you knew you did not have the heart attack gene? Maybe not be as motivated to exercise? Or if you were a smoker with the lung cancer gene, perhaps you would be more motivated to quit smoking?

When we move away from the population-based risk generalities and to our own very specific DNA, I am not sure which way the psychology will lead most people. On the one hand, knowing which diseases are more likely to develop than others lets you focus on the health-related behavior changes that may get you the most bang for the buck. If you have the genes for venous thromboembolism, you can take precautions on long airplane rides and be more aware of symptoms that need prompt medical attention. Those with several of the nine genes related to Type 2 Diabetes can focus on losing weight and monitoring changes in their blood sugar over time.

Along these lines, a recent study showed that patients with high cholesterol are more likely to be motivated to stay on their medication after seeing an actual scan of their own arteries showing blockage from plaque -- kind of like the medical version of Scared Straight. The only way to get more personally relevant than seeing evidence in your own body of your risk for heart disease is to see what your genes have to say.

On the other hand, the information people receive (and possibly misinterpret) about their genetic inheritance could lead to an unhealthy fatalism that prevents them from taking any action. If it's written in their DNA, what can they do to stop it? Or the absence of a disease-related gene, such as for breast cancer (they test for 2 genes, but not the rare but high-risk mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes), may lead to an unwarranted sense of invulnerability and the belief that mammograms are no longer necessary.

Of course, biology is not destiny. But it might be hard not to take it as such if you learn that you are at high risk for developing a potentially fatal disease. You may live your whole life in dread, waiting for the other shoe to drop (that is a strange phrase, isn't it?).

I am reminded of something that happened to me, which illustrates the idea that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Quite a few years ago, I was having back pain and so my doctor had an X-ray done of my back, along with an MRI. In addition to discovering that three of my vertebrae were fused in what was apparently a congenital condition, the MRI showed what the radiologist termed a "syrinx-like cavity" in my spinal cord. So of course I went online, looked up syrinxes and found that they can be a result of a degenerative disease called syringomyelia. It appeared that I would eventually suffer from things like motor impairment, muscle weakness, loss of sensitivity, and chronic pain. I and my family were devastated.

I became an expert on the disease, identified the best course of treatment (surgical implantation of a shunt in the spinal cord) and found clinical trials I could sign up for. Because this is a fairly rare disease, my regular physician and the specialists I consulted with did not have much more to tell me than what I could find myself. The fact that I was asymptomatic was a good thing, but symptoms can come suddenly, triggered by coughing or straining that puts pressure on the cerebrospinal fluid.

I was lucky that one of the world's experts on syringomyelia was based at UCLA, and after what seemed like a very long time, I was able to get a consultation with him. He took one look at my MRI and said that I did not have syringomyelia. The syrinx was just a vestige of a congenital blip in the development of my spinal cord, and would likely never cause me any problem. And just like that, the random discovery of this anomaly that had turned my life upside down no longer meant anything. False positives are always an issue, as they are with technologies like full-body CT scans that are fishing expeditions for evidence of disease.

As more and more people decide to delve into their genetic endowment, like those at the "spit parties" hosted by 23andMe, ethical issues are bound to pop up. I don't think we'll ever have Gattaca-like genetic discrimination, but what happens if insurance companies decide they need to have a look-see at our DNA before they agree to cover us? Genetic testing already plays a prominent role early on in the dating process in some Orthodox Jewish communities, with both parties getting tested and checked against each other to see if they are genetically compatible (i.e., not both carriers of genes for genetic diseases more common among Ashkenazic Jews). Potential couples who may otherwise be perfect for each other may never get together because of that 25% chance of having a baby with a disease like Tay-Sachs or Cystic Fibrosis.

So, what do you think? Do you plan to have yourself and your family tested? Would knowing your genetic code motivate you to take action? Or are there just some things you would be better off not knowing?

Photo Credit: MASH DnArt

Technorati Tags: 23andMe, Sergei Brin, Google, health, genetics

Come Dialogue on New Media Today!

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:00:00 +0000

Please join me today (September 16th, 9 am - 7 pm EDT) in a CDC-sponsored Web Dialogue on New Media in Health Marketing. I will be a panelist, along with:

Ann Aikin, Health Communications, CDC/NCHM/DeHM
Jennie Anderson, MS, AIDS.gov and John Snow Inc.
Miguel Gomez, Director, AIDS.gov, OS
Fard Johnmar, M.A., Envision Solutions, LLC
R. Craig Lefebvre, PhD, Adjunct Professor, School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University

We'll be asking questions, offering ideas and answers in response to your questions and thoughts, and discussing issues related to blogs, social networks, and other types of social media, as they relate to health marketing (CDC's term for social marketing). Over 300 of our closest friends have also registered, and will be part of the conversation as well. I hope you will register and join us!

P.S. I will be joining late, as the three hour time difference, plus dropping my sister off at the airport, will delay my jumping in. I'm counting on you all to keep the conversation going until I get back!

Guest Post - Through the Eyes of a Marketer: ServiceNation's Summit

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:40:00 +0000

As promised, here is the guest post from CK following up on the proceedings from the ServiceNation Summit:

Having just come off of ServiceNation's Summit I'm aflutter with thoughts. It's not every day that I attend an event with 500+ leaders of non-profit, NGO and social change organizations. And it's certainly not every day that I get to be at an event with such notables as Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Jon Bon Jovi, Usher, the CEOs of AARP, Habitat for Humanity and the list goes on. And on.

The event left me humbled and heartened; I guess the best way to put it is that the event left me affected. And I admit to wiping tears from my eyes when Hillary Clinton hit the stage. Whether you voted for her or not, she has done momentous, moving things in her career. Matter of fact, whether you agree with the views or parties of any of the political leaders that were present, I hope we can all agree that these people have accomplished much (as anything else would be downright myopic).

And I give compliments to BOTH presidential candidates for doing well at Thursday night's Presidential Summit. I didn't come at this event to judge, but to listen. You see, this event was not a debate because this event was about uniting us all around something on which we all agree: the need to place service, in its many and myriad forms...spanning improvements to education to bettering our nation's health to eradicating our plummeting levels of poverty...into a place of more prominence in our country, to garner more participation from the public and the need to shift many of our existing perceptions around service.

And if we're talking prominence and participation---and most definitely when we're talking perceptions--we are talking my language. Um, marketing anyone?

#1 Exalt prominence: As a nation we have plenty to be proud of on service--many don't realize what a strong nation of volunteers and efforts to improve social conditions we can boast. But we haven't placed this as prominently as other departments. Governor Schwarzenegger and wife Maria Shriver have worked hard to get California to appoint a Service Director to its cabinet level--and both McCain and Obama vowed to add this position to their cabinets at the federal levels as well. There are bills dedicated to service that are currently in Congress and ServiceNation unleashed a Declaration of Service that many signed at the event.

#2 Increase participation levels: Whether through activism, advocacy or volunteerism, our nation can increase its level of time dedicated to service. Corporations can make it easier for workers to dedicate a portion of their time to charities. Individuals can learn how to spend a few less hours watching TV and instead teach a child or an adult to read. As marketers we can lend a few spare hours a month to helping a charity with their promotional needs. Point is, we can get creative, and dedicating time to service can be both impactful and tenable amid busy schedules.

#3 Shift pre-existing Perceptions: Obama hit on how we "need to make service cool again" and Schwarzenegger hit on how we need to "leave a space open on our resumes for service," while Bon Jovi wants to make "service the new black, always in high fashion." The thing is, we need to shift perceptions around (1) how much service improves our country and its citizens and (2) whom all can dedicate time to service. Remember, while the young have unparalleled levels of energy, older segments have unprecedented wisdom that can only be gained through experience--with retirees having more time they can allot to important causes (I will talk more on this later as, just like AARP underscored, we need to stop viewing the 50+ segment as a deficit when, in fact, they will likely be our biggest asset).

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not extend my gratitude to three entities:

First, to ServiceNation: The event itself--and the overall movement--is a marketing brainchild. BRAVO! There are many organizations dedicated to improving the country's many issues and pushing for social change so to nestle them all under "service" was clever. What's more? ServiceNation is only about 18 month's old, which makes their tireless efforts all the more impressive.

Second, to Echo Ditto: I am beyond impressed at how professional and respectful the EchoDigital Team were to we bloggers (big props to Brian Reich and Joseph Porcelli). They ensured we were well communicated to and had proper accommodations. So much so that, as a professional, I would have no reservations about recommending them to my clients who need help in bolstering communications and communities around their special events.

Third, to Nedra Kline Weinreich: Nedra is both teacher and friend to me. She not only provided me the reference to attend the event, Nedra helps me every day. She's taken the time to teach me new strategies and methods on social marketing (which is NOT the same thing as social media--read more here). I find that teaching another is one of the most giving things we can do for another person; in this case it's a huge act of service in bettering our profession.

PS: Yes, those are pictures from speakers at the event. I needed to take shots of the large screens as I wasn't close enough to the stage to get clearer pictures (and Schwarzenegger attended via video feed). I hope it's OK that I placed photos of the big names in this post...as I said in my opening, it's just not every day that I'm in the company of 500 of them.

---

Nedra here again. A big thanks to CK for her reportage and analysis, as well as the very kind things she said about me. If you would like to read other bloggers' takes on the summit, here are some links:

Be the Change, Inc.

The New Service

Have Fun * Do Good

Allison Fine

The Toad Stool

Awearness: The Kenneth Cole Blog

Everyday Giving

Columbia Graduate School of Journalism

Spark*Blog

Future Leaders in Philanthropy (FLiP)

Social Citizens

Conservation Nation

Inside the Marketer's Studio

My 2 Cents

Climbing the ServiceNation Summit

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:40:00 +0000

In this political season, it's easy to get caught up in the partisan politics and back-and-forth snipes. But on September 11th, both candidates will come together on something they can agree on - the importance of community service. Without enthusiastic and willing volunteers, many nonprofits would be unable to function. An organizing committee of 118 member nonprofits, from AARP to Youth Volunteer Corps of America, has put together a monster pep rally to kick off a new national initiative called ServiceNation.

I was invited to attend their New York-based event as a blogger, but unfortunately there's no subway stop near me here in LA. So I am sending blogger friend and New York local CK (Christina Kerley) to go in my stead to report back to us on the event. If you don't already know CK, she is one of the most generous, clever and authentic voices in the marketing blog community; though she does not primarily work with nonprofit issues, per se, she certainly has the heart of a social marketer.

Here is CK's preview of the event, which is also cross-posted on her blog:

I'm both honored and over the moon to be attending ServiceNation's Summit on September 11th and September 12th. I'll be blogging a wrap-up of the event...and oh what an event it will be.

For two days over 500 leaders will convene in NYC for a moratorium on politics, to wholly focus on service. The lineup of speakers is mind-blowing (and make me feel oh so small) including Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg, even Alicia Keys, Jon Bon Jovi, Kenneth Cole, Usher and the CEO of Habitat for Humanity (my FAVE nonprofit organization).

See why I'm over the moon?

I'll be posting after the event, and I'll twitter when I can, but I wanted to first give you some background:

"ServiceNation Summit , Sept. 11-12 in New York city, will bring together 500 leaders of all ages and from every sector of American life —from universities and foundations, to business and politics—to celebrate the power and potential of citizen service, and lay out a bold policy blueprint for addressing America’s greatest social challenges through expanded opportunities for volunteer and national service.

The Summit will begin with a presidential candidates' forum the evening of September 11, where Senators McCain and Obama will speak in depth about their views on the role of citizenship and service in post-9/11 America. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will welcome the attendees when the proceedings continue the following day, and the summit will conclude with a keynote address by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who earlier this year became the first governor to create a cabinet post dedicated to service and volunteering."

ServiceNation is a campaign for a new America. An America where citizens unite and take responsibility for the nation’s future. An America that restores the great tradition of citizen service, and honors the profound sacrifices made by so many Americans who have passed before, from the small band of Founders to the millions who have fought for equality and justice at home, and defended our freedom abroad. ServiceNation is about an America that is ruggedly idealistic, compassionate, and above all committed to the idea of shared sacrifice in pursuit of America’s boldest promise: liberty and justice for all."

I will be joined by my fellow colleagues'/marketing bloggers: David Berkowitz, David Reich and Alan Wolk...so watch for posts and tweets from us all. Lastly, I need to give a HUGE shout-out and HEAPS of gratitude to Nedra Kline Weinreich for recommending me to attend this event. Unfortunately, since she's on the West Coast she won't be able to attend (and will have to vicariously experience the event through me); but she has truly made my year. I'll be cross-posting on this blog and her blog about the event.

Here are some links for more info.:
To see the schedule of events on Thursday and Friday go here
To follow ServiceNation on Twitter go here
Follow David Berkowitz, Alan Wolk or CK (me) on Twitter
To learn more about ServiceNation go here

Kudos to the ServiceNation organizers for reaching out to bloggers to extend the reach of their event. In addition to CK's coverage here after the event, I will also link out to other bloggers who are attending, including Allison Fine, Anthony Showalter and Lara Galinsky of Echoing Green, and others I know who are awaiting their security clearance.

I'm looking forward to CK's report about the Summit, which will appear here soon afterward. In the meantime, check out some of CK's posts related to social marketing issues and social media. Thanks, CK, for being our intrepid reporter!

Hurricane Force Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:06:00 +0000

While at this point it is apparent that Hurricane Gustav is not going to turn into another Katrina, at the end of last week it was not so clear. What was clear is that social media is playing a bigger role in disaster preparedness and response than ever before.

As we went into the holiday weekend, I watched in awe from the sidelines as a tribe of people on Twitter mobilized to put social media tools into place to deal with the anticipated disaster, building on what had been created two years earlier on an ad hoc basis in the social aftermath of Katrina. With a volunteer effort led by Andy Carvin of NPR, the work centered around a Ning social network called the Gustav Information Center and a related wiki.

In this and other independent initiatives, many people created and compiled tools like Twitter feeds that broadcast government alerts, news, and blog links about Gustav, as well as a widget that combined all Twitter mentions of Gustav; an interactive map that shows evacuation routes, shelter locations and storm movement; a feed of Craigslist volunteering and housing opportunities; a mobile resource guide and more. ReadWriteWeb compiled a comprehensive list of the online resources that were created mostly in advance of the hurricane's landfall.

While clearly the government was much better prepared to ensure there was no repeat of the chaos that ensued after the dropping of balls at multiple levels two years ago, and nonprofits like the Red Cross stood at the ready to assist people displaced by the storm, the prize for coordination has to go to the citizen volunteers who spent their Labor Day weekend building a massive online infrastructure. These are people who often had no connection to New Orleans other than a strong desire to do something to help their fellow humans. And by working together in a coordinated way, they were able to avoid duplicating efforts and use their volunteer time most efficiently.

Considering the massive resources that FEMA has at its disposal, the web page it created with information about the Federal response to Gustav is fairly paltry. The Red Cross utilized a blog as an online newsroom to good effect, with multimedia resources for the press and quick distribution of downloadable public service announcements. And its Safe and Well list can also be accessed via Twitter.

But it is the combined contributions of hundreds of social media enthusiasts that created a gale force of its own and demonstrated the raw power of the social web.

Technorati Tags: hurricane gustav, social media, disaster preparedness, fema, red cross

China's PR Olympics

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:06:00 +0000

I hope that when the International Olympic Committee meets in its cushy offices on the shores of Lake Geneva to do its postmortem of this year's games, they have the honesty to admit that the choice of Beijing as Olympic host was a huge mistake (they won't, of course). While the Chinese people certainly have the Olympic spirit running through their veins (and the Chinese athletes have probably had an IV drip in place since they were seven), the Chinese government did exactly what many human rights activists feared. I've already written about all the reasons why China should not have been awarded the games, so on the heels of the Olympic closing ceremony, let's look at the results.

After enduring what seemed like plagues of Biblical proportions in the months running up to the Olympics (the earthquake, locusts, tons of algae covering the Olympic sailing venue, choking pollution and more), China overcame them all to put on a blockbuster show for the world. The opening ceremony dazzled fans and critics alike, but the "One World" theme would have been profoundly more meaningful if China would actually let its citizens join the rest of the world rather than surrounding them with firewalls.

Every aspect of the Olympic production was carefully orchestrated to show that China deserves to stand alongside the other nations of the world, and to showcase what China has to offer. Unfortunately, this $40 billion spectacle was created on the backs of the Chinese citizens, who the government spared no opportunity to repress in the interest of global PR. Whether it was the thousands of dissidents who were preemptively arrested prior to the influx of outside reporters, the hundreds of thousands of Beijing residents who were displaced to make way for Olympic venues without compensation, or the "undesirables" -- the homeless, beggars, and street vendors -- who were rounded up and sent to detention centers, I cannot look at the beautiful stadiums without thinking about the price extracted by the government to erect them.

The Chinese Olympic Committee provided assurances that things would change if they were awarded the games. They would open more access to the internet, offer opportunities for protest, allow outside reporters to have freedom in what they reported. This resulted in temporary access to some Western media sources online, which has now been clamped closed. The protest zones were empty, not because everybody was suddenly happy, but because the government arrested everyone who applied for a permit to demonstrate, including two elderly Chinese women, who were sentenced to a year in a labor camp, and at least eight American bloggers and activists sentenced to 10 days in detention. If anything, the iron fist of the government tightened during the Olympics rather than loosened.

Along the way, though, the Chinese government's carefully constructed PR facade started showing some chinks in its armor (pun definitely NOT intended!). It was revealed that the opening ceremony's technically amazing fireworks display included some CGI effects. A picture perfect girl was actually lip-synching to the beautiful voice of another girl, who had been deemed too unattractive to represent China. The children representing the 56 ethnic groups in China were all from the Han majority. Many sold-out events were played in front of half-filled stands to prevent the gathering of large uncontrollable crowds. And the question remains whether the Chinese government issued passports to underage gymnasts so they could compete on behalf of the country.

All this is not to say that the Olympics themselves were defective. To the contrary, the athletes that gathered from all over the world to compete exemplified the best of Olympic values, and bear no complicity in the shameful activities of the Chinese government's preparations for the games.

Now it's back to business as usual for China -- though with a shiny new veneer of acceptability by many of the world's citizens. We can hope that the brief encounter that the Chinese people had with the free world will be a catalyst for change from within. But none of the world's leaders -- including President Bush, who attended the opening ceremony in Beijing -- have said much to counter the PR cover-up. The athletes who joined Team Darfur, or others who might have felt free to make a political statement in any other country, avoided any controversial statements, worried that, like Joey Cheek, their visas would be revoked and they would not be allowed to compete.

China definitely got what it wanted out of the deal. And the rest of us got a spin job.

Photo Credit: nataliebehring.com

Technorati Tags: olympics, china, human rights, PR, marketing

Engagement and Deliverance at the CDC, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:48:00 +0000

Continuing the sum-up of my experience at the CDC's 2nd National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media (Part 1 here), here are the key points from the sessions I attended on the second day...

Plenary

Jack Wakshlag, Chief Research Officer, Turner Broadcasting Systems - Countering the prevailing wisdom that today's media consumers are watching less and less television, he provided some statistics that surprised me. TV viewing has been rising from 2002-2007, and the average person spends 47% of their media hours with a television on. Network viewing (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) is at an all-time low, but cable channels are at a high. Even people with broadband internet are watching more TV now than five years ago, not replacing it with online video (which are more like "snacks," averaging 2 min 12 sec, rather than longer-format programming). Even teens are watching more TV, though less than adults.

After the session, I asked Mr. Wakshlag what I thought was the elephant in the room, which he hadn't addressed. Increased TV viewing is great for people working in entertainment education, working to get their issues depicted on TV programming. But clearly the key reason why he is promoting the continued domination of television is to make the case for advertising when many advertisers are defecting to other media - but are people still paying attention to the commercials? With the advent of Tivo and DVRs, many have the ability to bypass the ads. He conceded that only about 50% of viewers watch the commercials, though I suppose the numbers are still big enough to make it worth it.

J. Walker Smith, President, Yankelovich, Inc. - Our relationships with brands are changing in a couple of different key ways. First, the culture of "dis-ownership" means that we no longer have to own something to have it (e.g., leasing, swapping, fractional ownership, piracy, etc.). Second, the culture of "responsibility" has come about from an increased emphasis on values that companies should be green, socially responsible, community-focused and purpose-driven. People see their purchases as a way of sending a message and influencing companies' business practices. This can only happen with increased information availability, but in a pinpointed way. Enabling "narrow engagement," with just the key pieces of information that people need to make decisions without overwhelming them, is going to be the key to making this happen.

Building Our Understanding of Health Messages Targeting Women
(I was moderating this session and didn't take as many notes as I should have!)

Samantha Nazione, Michigan State University - In a study looking at breast cancer-focused websites, she found that there is not much targeting done in terms of ethnicity or language. In general, the website reading levels were too high. Websites tailored for minorities were more likely to use first-person stories about breast cancer.

Patrice Chamberlain, San Francisco State University - Mothers are a huge target of advertising, with 80.5 million mothers controlling 80% of household spending ($1.6 trillion purchasing power). After the internet, magazines are the second most important source of information for moms for purchasing decisions. This study looked at food and beverage ads in the top parenting publications in the US, and analyzed them in terms of the appeals they used. The most common appeals were about the healthfulness and taste of the products. Many also promised things like more family time, improved relationships with the kids, ways for moms to "do it all." She contrasted the images with some of the nutrition-related social marketing ads that are out there, which often focus more on deficiencies or fear and guilt; we need to learn better from those with the most experience how to appeal to moms.

Christy Ledford, George Mason University - In looking at the websites that pharmaceutical companies have used to promote their contraceptive products, they had several common factors. Rather than promoting effectiveness as the key benefit, most touted things like convenience, other physiological benefits (e.g., reduced acne, no periods), and relative risk compared to other brands. The risks were always in tiny text at the bottom of the page, and only one site out of the ten presented the "black box" warning that was required in other media. The sites did not make clear that they were advertising, often appearing to be educational, with the pharmaceutical company or division's name in an obscure location. And the URLs usually consisted of a message, rather than the product's name (e.g., onceamonth.com). While there is currently no regulations regarding online direct-to-consumer advertising, most of these sites violate current DTC regulations for other media.

Health Marketing Strategies: Segmentation, Tailoring and Targeting
(Unfortunately, I missed the first speaker in this panel.)

Leslie Snyder, University of Connecticut - A meta-analysis of interventions that tailored their communications to audience members found (not surprisingly) that tailored interventions were more effective in bringing about health behavior change than non-tailored interventions. She gave an example of tailored calendars to promote childhood immunizations, which included a picture of the child and his/her name, along with key dates like his/her birthday, required shots based on the birthdate, and the phone number of the nearest clinic to their house. Tailored interventions have a similar effect size to media campaigns, and because the effect declines over time should have a "booster activity" done at about three months post-intervention. Did you know that the University of Connecticut has a Center for Health Communication and Marketing? I didn't.

Adam Barry, Texas A&M University - This was a very exploratory study (only 13 participants) regarding how college students interpret the message to "drink responsibly," since there is no universally accepted definition of responsible drinking. With responses like no drinking and driving, knowing your limits, pacing your drinking, and planning ahead, there is a lot of room for negative consequences. For example, the students said you can't know your personal limits until you go past them, and as long as you don't black out or throw up, you are within the limits. In monitoring your drinking, by the time you notice the effects, your judgment is already gone. If you pace your drinking (e.g., one drink/hour) you can still get drunk because your body does not metabolize one drink an hour. Even the designated driver concept often gets ignored because it's like a "punishment" for the one who is not allowed to drink. We have to be careful in the messages we put out there, because some can be dangerous if misinterpreted or misapplied.

Peer-to-Peer Communications

Scott Shamp, University of Georgia (and others) - For National HIV Testing Day, UGA's New Media Institute, along with partners Verizon, CDC, Danya International and Nokia, recruited 23 students from universities in the Southeast to come together to create what they called "Personal Public Service Announcements" (PPSAs). These were short videos created on cell phones all in the course of one day. Guided by experts, the students learned about HIV/AIDS, about filmmaking and how to use the technology. After coming up with their plans and having them approved by a CDC panel for accuracy, they were divided into remote teams, who shot the footage and then immediately sent it back to the producers who edited it into short videos. They shot 22 videos, and eight of them were used in the final set. They were distributed online in places like YouTube, MySpace, and blogs (e.g., Osocio), as well as on cell phone networks. They all included the KNOWIT SMS code, to which viewers could text their zip code to receive the testing location nearest them.

Sarah Diamond, The Institute for Community Research - The Xperience project trained vocal artists ages 14-25 about drug and alcohol prevention, while also helping them create and record a song, rap or spoken piece about the issue. These pieces were then compiled into a CD and performed at a concert. In research to determine the effect of these peer-created messages on the listeners, she found that when the lyrics were "loss-framed" (e.g., negative effects of drugs), males and females related better to the same-sex artists, and the males responded more in general. The "gain-framed" lyrics (e.g., "you can do it," "things will be better") appealed to both genders.

Unfortunately, I was not able to stay for the third day of the conference, but perhaps others have posted their notes for other sessions on the Ning group created for the conference. As with many conferences, though, the personal connections made with old and new friends were even more of a highlight than the sessions themselves.

In other CDC-related news, make sure you sign up for the upcoming Web Dialogue on Web 2.0 and Health Marketing co-sponsored by CDC's National Center for Health Marketing and WestEd. It will be a one-day asynchronous discussion on September 16th about how to use social media technologies in social marketing and public health. I will be a panelist, along with Fard Johnmar and Craig Lefebvre (so far). I can see by those who have already registered to participate that many of my very smart online friends will be there, so it should be a rollicking good time where we'll all learn from each other. Make sure you sign up too!

And another piece of exciting news comes from Jay Bernhardt, the director of the NCHM:

The CDC National Center for Health Marketing is developing a national network of leaders dedicated to applying the power of marketing, communication, and partnerships to improve the health of individuals, families, and communities in the US and throughout the world. This network of individual leaders and organizations, called the Health Marketing Leadership Roundtable will strive to advance the field of health marketing science and practice, educate and inform partners and stakeholders on the value of health marketing for improving people’s health, and receive key updates on health marketing activities from CDC and others throughout the field of public health.

Whatever gets us closer to formalizing ways to advance the social marketing field and brings practitioners together is a good thing. I look forward to seeing where this goes!

Engagement and Deliverance at the CDC, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Nedra Weinreich) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:00:00 +0000

I can't attend humongous conferences like the American Public Health Association monstrosity; although there are an incredible number of sessions, only a small percentage actually apply directly to my own interests. Last week at the CDC's 2nd National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media, I had the opposite problem. So many sessions were scheduled, and nearly every one was spot-on as to the topics I want to learn about, that it was hard to choose which ones to attend. (Disclosure: I was on the conference planning committee, but can't really claim credit for how the actual end product turned out. And I unfortunately did not try hard enough to change the theme -- "Engage and Deliver" -- which Adam Ant sang over and over in my head throughout the conference.)

I had to miss the last day of the conference, but still filled an entire notepad with my notes from each session. Aside from the plenary sessions, the panels were comprised primarily of research-based presentations. Despite some inevitably dry deliveries, I'm glad our field has evolved to the point where we have so much research to share. Here are some of the key points I thought were worth highlighting:

Plenary

James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, talked about how, under the right conditions, a group's decisions can be smarter than those of the smartest person in the group. He used examples like Google's pagerank algorithm, racetrack betting and Best Buy's yearly gift card sales. His point is that if you can devise a way to aggregate individual predictions simultaneously, and to do this within a diverse group of people with different perspectives and ways of approaching problems, the random errors will cancel each other out and you will end up with the closest approximation to the correct answer.

Key lessons: 1) When assembling a team to solve a problem, bring in people with many different viewpoints and skills. 2) Encourage disagreement. 3) Limit the amount of back-and-forth dithering, which leads to worse decisionmaking.

New Frontiers in Message Design Theory

Karen King, University of Georgia - If you have multiple messages to convey within a campaign, you can bundle up to four together without losing recall. It does not make a difference whether you specify the category that unifies the messages. I found this interesting as I have always thought to be most effective you should limit the number of messages you try to cram into a single communication piece. They were testing this with brochures, but I think other media would have a different maximum number.

Michael Rovito, Temple University - For the issue of testicular cancer, he used perceptual mapping to identify four different types of "control identities" related to locus of control (whether people believed control was external or internal) and constructs of whether control is realistic or unrealistic. The four types were: 1) The Fates - unrealistic external; 2) The Herd - realistic external; 3) The Optimals - realistic internal; and 4) The Manipulators - unrealistic internal. Clearly, different types of people need different kinds of messages tailored to their beliefs.

Bill Smith, Academy for Educational Development - Bill described a research/decision making technique called "deliberative polling," which was created by James Fishkin and offers another way to think about involving citizens in policy discussions when there is no clear-cut right answer. A randomly selected sample of 800-1500 people, who are first polled by phone, are brought together over two days. During this time they read background documents on the issue, have experts explaining the different options, ask questions of the experts, and break into small groups to discuss and debate what they've learned. This technique can be a good way of involving the public in evaluating competing alternatives and prioritizing public policy issues.

Applying Emerging Theories to Engage the Public

Sergey Sotnikov, CDC - By mapping out the relationships between either organizations or people within an organization, you can use network analysis to visualize the key points within the network. You can look at who is most connected overall, who are the go-betweens on specific topics, and who is more isolated. This can help you figure out the best way to spread information within a network.

Jennifer Heilbronner, Metropolitan Group - Jennifer spoke about building public will, and how this is a different process from social marketing. She defined it as "a communication approach that builds public support for long-term social change by integrating grassroots outreach methods with traditional mass media tools and connecting an issue to the existing, closely held values of individuals and groups." While I think she was contrasting this process to the too common mass media-focused, short-term campaign blast many people think is social marketing, her description of public will building is much closer to the more comprehensive marketing mix-driven social marketing process to which many of us in the field adhere. You can download her group's Public Will Framework to learn more about their process.

Constanze Rossmann, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat-Munchen - While I thought it was overkill to start off with a definition of "health flyer" and I loved her pronunciation of the word "anxiety" as "ANKshity" (Yes! It does look like it should be pronounced that way.), this presentation looked at two very important different elements of how we present information. First, do exemplars -- a case study of one person -- affect risk perceptions, attitudes and behaviors more than abstract statistics and generalizations about the population? In her testing of a brochure about obesity, the answer was yes -- but only among people who are already involved with the issue (e.g., worried about their weight, dieting, etc.). Second, what is the effect of fear appeals in graphic images? She tested three different images related to obesity, each of which was either low, moderate or high fear inducing. Interestingly, she found that when it came to building knowledge, the low and high images were more effective. To affect risk perception, attitudes and behaviors, the moderately fear inducing image was more effective. I wonder why that difference - do different types of people react to the images in different ways?

That was Day 1 - I'll sum up the second day in a subsequent post.

In the meantime, you can learn more by checking out the Ning group for the conference that was started by Dana Sheets as a place to share notes. If you're on Facebook, look at the Health Communication, Marketing and Media group that is a central place to exchange ideas related to the conference. Read Craig Lefebvre's summary of a discussion that took place at the conference about the development of a professional network. And if you went to the conference and want to put in your two cents about what you thought, someone at the CDC Chatter message board wants to know if it was "as extravagant and pointless as we all expected it to be." Um, no, Senator Coburn. An embarrassment of riches, perhaps, but extravagant and pointless, not in any way.

UPDATE: Read Part 2 here...