If Online Marketing Were to Pick The Next Republican Presidential Candidate…

One of the reasons why President Obama won the 2008 election was because of his campaigns mastery of social media and online marketing. The Obama campaign embraced these two forms of marketing, creating a winning online strategy that appealed to Millennials especially. Four years later, have Republicans caught up in terms of marketing their campaigns effectively online? The top two candidates on the Republican side right now are former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Which campaign has the best online marketing strategy? Let’s put the two campaigns head to head and find out.

Let’s analyze Romney and Santorum’s brands in terms of their online marketing efforts. We’ll focus on three categories: social media impact, website engagement, and website SEO and inbound links.

Social Media Impact
Facebook: Romney’s Facebook page has a whopping 1,509,746 “likes,” versus Santorum’s meager 164,906. This is a HUGE difference!  Also, Romney has almost 80,000 people talking about him on Facebook whereas Santorum has just over 41,000 people talking about him. Also, Romney’s page, powered by digital media company Thismoment, just looks a lot better than Santorum’s

Twitter: Again Romney has more followers, with 360,155 versus Santorum’s 153,375. Surprisingly, though, Santorum has actually tweeted about twice as much as Romney in total. Santorum has been tweeting an average of 5.4 times a day for the past week, which is impressive compared to Romney’s 1.4 average tweets per pay during the same period. Tweeting more often allows Santorum to be more engaged with his audience as well as more informative. He often retweets posts by his followers and keeps them up to date on the latest happenings with his campaign. Romney does the same thing, just much less frequently, which loses him points. Over the past eight weeks, however, Romney has been gaining both Facebook “likes” and Twitter followers at a much faster pace than Santorum

YouTube: Again, Romney has more subscribers than Santorum with 5,008 versus 2,914. Romney also has more channel views and more total upload views.

Overall, it’s possible that Santorum might have slightly more social media engagement with his followers, but there’s no denying that Romney has more followers in every category and is therefore the clear winner in terms of social media impact. Romney also has a higher Klout score (77) than Santorum (66).

Winner: Mitt Romney

Website Engagement
Website engagement measures how users interact with a website. Website owners want users to be able to easily navigate a site and find information they are looking for. In terms of our two contestants, I would assume they would also want users to stay on their site for as long as possible, researching the candidate’s platform, clicking multiple pages, and donating to the campaign. They also need a site that effectively communicates their political message to visitors.

When visiting Romney’s website, visitors are asked to provide their email address and zip code before even entering the actual website. Obviously this is to grow Romney’s database, but it doesn’t fall in line with the permission marketing concept that businesses are beginning to follow. Upon entering both the sites, they look very similar. Both sites make it easy for visitors to find each candidate’s bio and the issues they stand for, as well as donate money.

From a design standpoint, Romney’s website definitely looks better than Santorum’s, though. Santorum’s site does the job, but it doesn’t look like he’s put as much money into it as Romney has.

Winner: Mitt Romney

Website SEO & Inbound Links
SEO and inbound links are very important to a website because they determine how high up on a Google search the site will appear. It will be hard for a website to be on the first page of a Google search without many inbound links to the site. It also tells us how popular the website is in the vast sea of the World Wide Web. While SEO is probably not a major concern for these presidential candidates, whoever runs their website is probably very concerned with SEO.

A Google search for “Santorum,” for example, provides links to many anti-Santorum sites on the first page of Google. Santorum’s actual website isn’t even the first website on the page, it’s third! The fourth website is called “Spreading Santorum,” and has the quote, “The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex” visible right underneath the link to the website. I’m sure Team Santorum is not very pleased about this; they obviously need to work on their SEO.

According to HubSpot’s Marketing Grader tool, Romney beats Santorum 91 to 66. Marketing Grader is an assessment tool that analyzes a site’s entire marketing funnel and compares it to another site. When looking at inbound links to their websites, Romney wins with 3,828 inbound links versus Santorum’s 1,566. Romney also has 10,800 pages indexed by search engines while Santorum only has 1,460.

Romney’s site has a blog that publishes new posts every three hours on average. These blog posts are being shared an average of 75 times on Facebook and 38 times on Twitter. Santorum also has a blog but new posts are created much less frequently.

Winner: Mitt Romney

If the next Republican presidential candidate were to be picked strictly on the basis of online marketing, Romney would be the clear winner. He beats Santorum in all three categories; Team Santorum needs to step up their efforts if they want to pull ahead on Super Tuesday.

Reminder: Why I still love Alaska

When I was 18 and just getting ready to leave Alaska for college, I could NOT wait to get out of the secluded state and its famously cold weather. I was born and raised in Alaska and it was pretty much all I knew. Our family went on vacations relatively frequently, but I had still endured 18 brutal Alaskan winters that last about nine months each. I was so ready to leave and I could not ever imagine missing the place I had called home for so many years.

View of downtown Anchorage on a clear winter day, Cook Inlet in foreground and Chugach Mountains in background

Now that I’ve been in college for almost four years and have had a taste of the “lower 48” for more than just a vacation, I have a different perception of Alaska that has developed only recently since my visit for Christmas ended last week. I have lived in Reno for the past four years and I have been LOVING the hot summers here. I also like the relatively mild winters because we still get snow but it’s not too cold. This year has been different, however. It’s now January 3rd, and there hasn’t been a flake of snow in Reno, and there isn’t any snow on the forecast. This sucks; the winter weather in Reno has been really lame. There’s no snow, everything is dead and ugly outside, the skiing in Tahoe is terrible, there hasn’t been any snow days at school, no shoveling, no turning on the rear defroster, no snowball fights, nothing! All of this combined actually made me miss Alaska weather for the first time, and I actually couldn’t wait to go back for Christmas this year. I hadn’t seen snow since last spring, and I wanted a WHITE CHRISTMAS!

View from the top of Alyeska Ski Resort, a few miles out of Anchorage

On my arrival in Anchorage the week before Christmas, I was ecstatic to be landing on a snowy tarmac in a white wonderland! There was snow everywhere, just what I needed. I didn’t mind the cold temperatures, because the flurry of snow coming from the sky and the soft white layer that covered absolutely everything outside was more stunning than I remembered it ever being. And sure enough, I woke up Christmas morning to more falling snow, fulfilling my wish for an amazingly surreal white Christmas.

The snowy streets of Anchorage, normal winter day. Average annaul snowfall for Anchorage is 70.6 inches (National Climate Data Center)

Although I admittedly wouldn’t want to bear the winter Alaska weather for a full nine months, being in it for a week was awesome. I loved every minute of being outside, whether it was jaywalking the icy streets downtown to get to the next bar, brushing a pile of snow off the car from the night before, or just staring up at the night sky as the snow fell. So overall, I have a new found appreciation for Alaska. Next year, I will not only be excited to see friends and family for the holidays, but I’ll also be excited to enjoy a beautiful white Christmas, one thing that Alaska can always guarantee me.

Visit my little brother’s website for more amazing photos of Alaska here

Feel free to leave any comments or questions below!

The Year of Tech IPO’s: From Groupon’s Success to Renren’s Disappointment

As you have probably noticed, over the past year there has been a lot of news surrounding tech IPO’s. New companies like Pandora and LinkedIn have made HUGE splashes with their IPO’s in recent months. It seems like every month a hot new company goes public, but these IPO’s aren’t always pretty. Today I’m going to talk about some recent tech IPO’s, how they are doing now, and some future IPO’s that investors are about to bust a nut for.

The biggest tech IPO’s of the year include: Demand Media (online media/content farm company), Zipcar (membership-based car sharing company), Renren (China’s largest social networking site), LinkedIn, Yandex (Russia’s largest search engine site), Bankrate (personal finance company), Pandora Media (online radio), Zillow (online real estate database), Skullcandy (headphones), and yesterday, Groupon.

Groupon has been trying to go public for a few months now, and ended up being the biggest tech IPO since Google went public in 2004. Groupon offered 35 million shares total at $20 each, and as of this morning the company is worth almost $13 billion with shares sitting at $26.11. The IPO was a huge success for the company, even though there is a lot of skepticism about its future. One thing is for sure though, the IPO made a lot of investors happy. Like many IPOs, there were a lot of people who became millionaires and even billionaires overnight just because of the IPO.

For Groupon’s IPO, check out this Business Insider list of lucky people that made a lot of money as shareholders. The biggest winners include Starbucks’ Howard Schultz who got $50 million, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz’s venture capital firm got $92.2 million, and Groupon CEO Andrew Mason’s stake is now worth a whopping $1.2 billion.

Even though most of the recent tech IPO’s have initially been successful, a majority have gone downhill since. Demand Media went public in January with a debut price that was 33% higher then the share price of $17, valuing the company at more than $1 billion. Today however, the shares sit at just $7.47. Renren, basically the Facebook of China, was said to have a spectacular IPO in May with shares surging 28.6% above its $14 IPO price. Today Renren share’s are down to a dismal $5.74.

There are some companies who have kept their value, though. Since LinkedIn’s huge IPO in May, where shares closed 109% above IPO price, they now sit at $81, just below the IPO price of $83. Today Pandora is also doing all right, with shares just a few cents below the IPO price of $16. Real estate database company Zillow is still doing really well, with shares staying almost $10 above the IPO price of $20, but still way under the debut price of $57.

The chart below shows 25 recent hyped up IPO’s and how they’re fairing. “Pop” refers tothe jump from the offering IPO price to the debut price. (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Overall, it’s not very pretty after the initial offering. In terms of the average of the 25 above companies, shares have slipped 31% from their opening price.

The successes of some of these companies in the beginning of the year triggered an IPO race with many tech companies, but since seeing disappointments such as Renren’s, a lot of companies have backed off or are waiting until later for an IPO. Of these companies, the most notable is of course Facebook, which plans to go public next year sometime. Also there’s Zynga, the Facebook game company that could have an IPO this year, Living Social, Groupon’s biggest competitor, next year probably, and Twitter, which will probably wait until 2013.

It has definitely been an exciting year for tech IPO’s, I think it’s amazing how a company like Groupon or LinkedIn can be worth BILLIONS in such a short period of time. This is the land of opportunity, and there’s money to be made out there, but just because a company debuts way above the IPO price doesn’t mean it will stay there. We’ll see how long Groupon CEO Andrew Mason stays a billionaire. My guess? Not very long…

Feel free to leave any questions or comments below!

image credit
image credit

How Steve Jobs and Apple Changed Advertising Forever

Over the past two weeks the media has gone CRAZY over Steve Jobs and the legacy he left behind. I’m subscribed to Times and Businessweek, and both magazines did special editions where the whole magazine was dedicated to Jobs, as did many other magazines. I’m not trying to hop on the bandwagon really, but I want to talk about another side of Steve Jobs, that is, Steve Jobs the Marketer.

I believe that Steve Jobs and Apple changed the way companies approach advertising, PR and marketing in general. I think Apple almost revolutionized the advertising industry with the way they marketed the company and advertised their products. As with almost everything at Apple, Jobs had both hands on the advertising wheel at Apple, and he had to personally approve almost every type of ad that had Apple’s name on it.

From a young age, I can remember watching Apple commercials on TV and seeing print ads in magazines and loving them. Now that I’ve almost completed my marketing degree, I can see why. Jobs has always done advertising the right way. Every commercial they make, every print ad that is created, is done the Apple way.

So how has Apple changed advertising? Well let’s start from the beginning.

In 1984, Apple wanted to create a buzz around its newest product, the Macintosh. Apple produced what is now hailed as one the best commercials of all time, and began their mission to create the best advertising in the industry. The TV commercial was directed by Ridley Scott and created by Lee Clow, then a creative at Chiat/Day advertising agency. The commercial was hugely expensive to make and featured a female heroine defying conformity, underlying Apple’s attack on the status quo and positioning itself as a somewhat of a cult brand.

The commercial was not only critically acclaimed across the advertising industry, but it also started the trend of having super expensive TV ads aired during the Superbowl, a tradition that continues to get more popular, and competitive today.

After the “1984” commercial, however, Steve Jobs was fired along with Lee Clow and the Chiat/Day agency. Apple stumbled into darkness without Jobs and the brand image was hurt badly. Then in 1997, over ten years after he had been fired, Jobs came back to Apple and began to reshape the company. One of his main visions was to completely revitalize Apple’s image, and he began by rehiring Lee Clow and Chiat/Day.

He had a new vision for Apple, which materialized into the “Think Different” campaign. This campaign did not focus on any products, but instead began a trend of “lifestyle” advertising that continues to be very popular today. The commercials didn’t ever show any Apple product, but instead instilled a message, with the only mention of Apple being the logo at the end of the commercial. The print side of the campaign was also unique. Instead of computing and tech magazines, Apple bought space in fashion and pop culture mags. Chiat/Day also started another trend of using billboards and outdoor advertising for the campaign, which according to lowendmac.com, was practically unheard of for a computer company at that time. The campaign won several ad awards and single-handedly revived Apple’s image and reestablished Apple as a counter-culture brand.

Jobs’ friendship with Lee Clow continued, and the Chiat/Day agency soon became part of the larger TBWA ad agency. Lee Clow worked on pretty much every advertising campaign that Apple did, which is very rare for a big company like Apple. Most companies jump around from one agency to the next, choosing whoever they think will be best for that particular campaign or product. Lee Clow and TBWA have been Apple’s only ad agency for the better part of 30 years, not counting the years when Job’s left Apple.

Jobs felt so strongly about proper marketing and advertising for Apple that he and Clow went one-step further. In 2006, Jobs and Clow created Media Arts Lab, a subsidiary of TBWA that worked for ONE client only: Apple. In this sense, Apple had an EXCLUSIVE agency that worked just for them, headed by a Clow and Jobs. This was also a first for the industry, but Jobs wanted something the typical agency couldn’t offer: strategy, planning, creative, digital, media, production, and most importantly confidentiality, all under one roof (Evening London Standard).

Steve Jobs and Lee Clow, 1984

“Two characteristics made handling Apple’s advertising utterly different from any other account: an obsession with secrecy and an absolute autocracy. Steve and Lee would meet weekly for several hours to agree direction. Apple marketing was a tight, incredibly centrally run team with ideas being agreed in Cupertino [Apple HQ in California] and then being disseminated across the world via the TBWA network.” Said Andrew McGuinness, head of TBWA from 2002-2005. “Steve had the same relentless focus on detail on communications as he did on his products. Every letter, every TV ad, every poster that ran anywhere in the world would be OK’d personally by Steve. He truly was the Brand Manager of Apple.”

Having an exclusive agency at Jobs disposal allowed Apple to create some of the most memorable ads and campaigns of any tech company, ever. After Think Different, Apple went away from lifestyle advertising to focus on their products. But unlike other companies, Apple didn’t focus on how fast the processors were, how much RAM they came with, how big the hard drivers were, or specs at all for that matter. Apple focused on how their products could change your life. They focused on what products could do for the consumer, how they could use them and what they had to offer. This was brilliant.

According to AdAge, Apple has become one of the top 100 US advertisers by spending $420 million on advertising last year. Almost $200 million of that went to network TV, and $33 million went to bilboards. Only $24 million went to internet media, and unlike other brands who spend money on budget banner ads and online advertisements, most of this went to high-end home page take-overs on sites like the NY Times, WSJ and USA Today.

Almost every advertising campaign Apple did was done simply, effectively and beautifully, thanks to Steve Jobs. Says Kayak.com CMO Robert Birge, “Who could possibly compare as a marketer?” “He taught ad people that design is king,” says Venables Bell & Partners creative director Paul Venables. Bartle Bogle Hegarty’s John Hegarty explained Jobs’ approach to advertising as, “the task of advertising was to not get in the way of his brilliant innovations, but to simply shine a light on them. So many brands could learn from this example.” More quotes here.

Here are some more of Apple’s most memorable advertisements:

Feel free to leave any questions or comments below!

image credit
image credit

Jeff Bezos and The Future of Amazon

Steve Jobs. Bill Gates. Mark Zuckerberg. These names have a certain ring to them accompanied by visions of piles of cash, iPhones, Windows operating systems and Facebook accounts. Jeff Bezos doesn’t quite have that same ring to it. But it will. After watching Bezos’ recent Keynote presentation, I’m convinced that Bezos could well be the next Steve Jobs.

I’ve watched almost every Steve Jobs WWDC Keynote for the past few years, and I love his presentation style almost as much as the products he unveils. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, doesn’t quite have the magical presentation style that Jobs does, but he did one hell of a job unveiling the new Kindle devices and spelling out the future of Amazon on Wednesday.

For those of you now too familiar with the genus entrepreneur behind Amazon.com, Jeff Bezos grew up in Texas and graduated from Princeton. He moved to New York after graduation and got several different jobs in finance, eventually becoming VP at a successful firm specializing in the application of computer science to the stock market. By this time, the mid 90’s, the Internet wasn’t used to for e-commerce, but Bezos had an idea. According to his biography on the Academy of Achievement website, Bezos saw that Internet usage was increasing by 2,300% a year, and he knew there were new opportunities that he could capitalize on.

He looked at the top 20 mail order businesses of the day to see if any of them would be more efficient using the Internet. He realized that books were a commodity that could be sold on the Internet, because there were too many of them to ever put in one catalog. A huge database of books could be put on the Internet and reach a limitless audience, a perfect opportunity for Bezos. He immediately flew to LA for a bookseller’s convention and proceeded to learn everything he could about the industry. He came up with the idea of Amazon.com, but his employers weren’t prepared to help him. So he decided to quit his job and move to Seattle to start the website by himself.

Amazon was started in Bezos’ garage in Seattle in 1994. He initially told 300 of his friends about the company and asked them to spread the word. Within a month, with no press, Amazon.com had sold books in all 50 states and 45 foreign countries. Within three months, it had sales of $20,000 a WEEK. Bezos and his team continued improving the site, introducing such unheard-of features as one-click shopping, customer reviews, and e-mail order verification. Then they started selling more than just books. Now, Amazon is the world’s largest online retailer, with revenue of over $34 billion in 2010 and over 30,000 employees. Not to mention Bezos is worth $19.1 billion.

But Bezos didn’t stop there. Fast-forward a few years and Amazon is now MUCH more than just a website. Amazon offers more products and services than you know. They got into cloud computing early, and they are now competing in the cloud industry with the likes of Microsoft, Google and HP… and winning. They launched the Kindle book reader a few years ago and changed the landscape of book reading forever. Kindle has gotten phenomenal reviews, and according to ITB, Amazon has sold over 17 million of the devices, and they now sell more e-books than print books.

Fast-forward again to last Thursday and Amazon is expanding even more. Bezos announced the new Kindle Fire.

 

Kindle Fire is an iPad-like device that lets you download books, movies, music and apps instantly. It also stores ALL of your media on Amazon’s cloud for FREE. This means you can delete any content off the Kindle, such as a book you are done reading, and then instantly re-download it if you want to read it again, because everything’s stored on Amazon’s cloud. This also means that all your content auto-syncs with all your devices, such as your PC and phone, wirelessly and instantly. And… it’s only $199. The Kindle Fire will allow users to experience all of Amazon’s services, just like Apple has done. This includes Amazon Web Services (cloud), Amazon Prime (subscription service), Amazon Instant Video, Amazon MP3 Store, the Amazon App Store, as well as Amazon’s brand new browser, Amazon Silk. Silk is a revolutionary new browser, built from the ground up specifically for tablets and mobile devices, rather than PC’s.

 

Amazon is growing rapidly, and will soon be integrated into people’s lives just like Apple and Google are now. They have invested billions in their products, software, infrastructure, and services, and their strategy is beginning to pay off. Who knew a bookstore would transform into such a competitor in the retail, cloud computing, tablet, and online media markets, all at once?

Feel free to leave any questions or comments below!