Great to see you here again.

I think for the most part, I can agree with what you’re saying. And I’m finding David’s post fascinating — surely a topic for more discussion in a separate thread.

But let’s take his suggestion for “brand journalism” at face value. My point is simply that in order for you (or anyone) to convince Tom Kunz that he should divert $20m from TV advertising to “brand journalism”, he’s going to need more than a blog post. Or anecdotal evidence. Or super-sweet “what-if” scenarios.

Tom’s going to want to see some evidence that “brand journalism” works. Whether that’s a study by McKinsey about the utility of such a thing for a different company, or A/B testing involving different C21 franchises, he’s going to need to see some evidence that it works — usually with some sort of increase in revenues, decrease in costs, or both.

One of my personal pet proejcts, it appears, is to be the party pooper of the RE.net, running around telling folks to calm down the rhetoric a touch. I’m skeptical about the claims of superiority of Web 2.0 marketing or social media or what-have-you. But I’m not decided either. I am, if you will, entirely pragmatic: if it works for YOU, then by all means, do it.

But let’s not go claiming that social media will solve all our problems, when there is scant evidence of such a thing.

Furthermore, you in your role as the PR Director for C21 have a very different mission, I feel, than some of the participants in the RE.net. My experience is frankly closer to yours — I was on the brand side, and all of our efforts went more or less towards branding. And branding being such an inexact science, experimentation is often the order of the day.

Those folks in the RE.net who are in brokerage are looking to social media as lead generation, and I feel that’s a different animal altogether. There, you have to make choices between alternatives, and making the wrong one means reduced income, loss of market share, and possible financial ruin.

So I just want to encourage the other respected voices — like Ines, whose success speaks for itself — to be a bit more circumspect about what they claim as the power of social media. I think it’s perfectly fine to say, “We don’t know, but…” I think demanding things like “lift over control” actually gives us more credibility as we seek to educate the entire industry about what works and what doesn’t.

As Dave pointed out above, this sort of focus on metrics is something that the industry as a whole generally has not been good on historically. I don’t know a whole heck of a lot, but I do know this: the company that first figures out what its lifetime customer value is, and what the consequent cost of acquisition should be, will have an enormous advantage over its competitors.

I do like your advice — it’s solid. Experts will be found out, and people flock to them. Value-added information is, IMHO, the key to a branding operation for a real estate agent. But of course, I don’t have the data to backup that statement.

One day… one day, my friends….

-rsh

Great to see you here again.

I think for the most part, I can agree with what you’re saying. And I’m finding David’s post fascinating — surely a topic for more discussion in a separate thread.

But let’s take his suggestion for “brand journalism” at face value. My point is simply that in order for you (or anyone) to convince Tom Kunz that he should divert $20m from TV advertising to “brand journalism”, he’s going to need more than a blog post. Or anecdotal evidence. Or super-sweet “what-if” scenarios.

Tom’s going to want to see some evidence that “brand journalism” works. Whether that’s a study by McKinsey about the utility of such a thing for a different company, or A/B testing involving different C21 franchises, he’s going to need to see some evidence that it works — usually with some sort of increase in revenues, decrease in costs, or both.

One of my personal pet proejcts, it appears, is to be the party pooper of the RE.net, running around telling folks to calm down the rhetoric a touch. I’m skeptical about the claims of superiority of Web 2.0 marketing or social media or what-have-you. But I’m not decided either. I am, if you will, entirely pragmatic: if it works for YOU, then by all means, do it.

But let’s not go claiming that social media will solve all our problems, when there is scant evidence of such a thing.

Furthermore, you in your role as the PR Director for C21 have a very different mission, I feel, than some of the participants in the RE.net. My experience is frankly closer to yours — I was on the brand side, and all of our efforts went more or less towards branding. And branding being such an inexact science, experimentation is often the order of the day.

Those folks in the RE.net who are in brokerage are looking to social media as lead generation, and I feel that’s a different animal altogether. There, you have to make choices between alternatives, and making the wrong one means reduced income, loss of market share, and possible financial ruin.

So I just want to encourage the other respected voices — like Ines, whose success speaks for itself — to be a bit more circumspect about what they claim as the power of social media. I think it’s perfectly fine to say, “We don’t know, but…” I think demanding things like “lift over control” actually gives us more credibility as we seek to educate the entire industry about what works and what doesn’t.

As Dave pointed out above, this sort of focus on metrics is something that the industry as a whole generally has not been good on historically. I don’t know a whole heck of a lot, but I do know this: the company that first figures out what its lifetime customer value is, and what the consequent cost of acquisition should be, will have an enormous advantage over its competitors.

I do like your advice — it’s solid. Experts will be found out, and people flock to them. Value-added information is, IMHO, the key to a branding operation for a real estate agent. But of course, I don’t have the data to backup that statement.

One day… one day, my friends….

-rsh

Did you just bust out a Marshall McLuhan reference? Wow, that takes me back to my 1989 Mass Comm class. Given that McLuhan did his most important work in the 50′s and 60′s, it certainly says something that he is being recognized 60+ years later by a desciple of the social media commenting on the real estate industry.

So, how to apply McLuhan’s theory to today’s world and the real estate industry in particular? In my experience how a broker uses social media sends a clear message to both intended and unintended audiences.

By leveraging sites like Linkedin and Facebook to establish networks for business, recruiting and social engagement (in real estate all social engagement is business…who are we kidding) real estate professionals are engaged in targeting indtended audiences. However, simply by participating in the conversation, Realtors are unintentionally reaching a vast audience.

Recently, I challenged social media guru, David Meerman Scott, to come up with the top ten ideas that could help the CENTURY 21 brand reach its audiences (see post: http://www.webinknow.com/2008/10/top-10-ideas-fo.html). A few days later another reader responded that just by engaging in the conversation online the post had reached #6 in organic search on Google. Evidence that social media does have an impact on search.

In my humble opinion, the medium does send a message, but ultimately it is the message that drives readership, participation, conversation and relationships. Granted, as a professional communicator I feel confident that I could gin up the conversation level, but it takes the skills of a professional Realtor to take it from the blog post to the closing table. I think its great that so many people are turning on to basic communication principles and attempting to leverage them for business, but at the same time not everyone has the skill set to be an engaging writer.

My advice to professional Realtors is to use social media to promote and market, but don’t get hung up creating buzz for an online persona. Drive business by focusing on proving value-added information. Tell consumers what the First time homebuyer tax credit could mean to them or explore what financing options are available in today’s market? Engaging consumers with information they want is the key regardless of the medium.

Sender – Message – Channel – Receiver
Same as it ever was.

Matt Gentile, PR Director
Century 21 Real Estate

Did you just bust out a Marshall McLuhan reference? Wow, that takes me back to my 1989 Mass Comm class. Given that McLuhan did his most important work in the 50′s and 60′s, it certainly says something that he is being recognized 60+ years later by a desciple of the social media commenting on the real estate industry.

So, how to apply McLuhan’s theory to today’s world and the real estate industry in particular? In my experience how a broker uses social media sends a clear message to both intended and unintended audiences.

By leveraging sites like Linkedin and Facebook to establish networks for business, recruiting and social engagement (in real estate all social engagement is business…who are we kidding) real estate professionals are engaged in targeting indtended audiences. However, simply by participating in the conversation, Realtors are unintentionally reaching a vast audience.

Recently, I challenged social media guru, David Meerman Scott, to come up with the top ten ideas that could help the CENTURY 21 brand reach its audiences (see post: http://www.webinknow.com/2008/10/top-10-ideas-fo.html). A few days later another reader responded that just by engaging in the conversation online the post had reached #6 in organic search on Google. Evidence that social media does have an impact on search.

In my humble opinion, the medium does send a message, but ultimately it is the message that drives readership, participation, conversation and relationships. Granted, as a professional communicator I feel confident that I could gin up the conversation level, but it takes the skills of a professional Realtor to take it from the blog post to the closing table. I think its great that so many people are turning on to basic communication principles and attempting to leverage them for business, but at the same time not everyone has the skill set to be an engaging writer.

My advice to professional Realtors is to use social media to promote and market, but don’t get hung up creating buzz for an online persona. Drive business by focusing on proving value-added information. Tell consumers what the First time homebuyer tax credit could mean to them or explore what financing options are available in today’s market? Engaging consumers with information they want is the key regardless of the medium.

Sender – Message – Channel – Receiver
Same as it ever was.

Matt Gentile, PR Director
Century 21 Real Estate

Did you just bust out a Marshall McLuhan reference? Wow, that takes me back to my 1989 Mass Comm class. Given that McLuhan did his most important work in the 50′s and 60′s, it certainly says something that he is being recognized 60+ years later by a desciple of the social media commenting on the real estate industry.

So, how to apply McLuhan’s theory to today’s world and the real estate industry in particular? In my experience how a broker uses social media sends a clear message to both intended and unintended audiences.

By leveraging sites like Linkedin and Facebook to establish networks for business, recruiting and social engagement (in real estate all social engagement is business…who are we kidding) real estate professionals are engaged in targeting indtended audiences. However, simply by participating in the conversation, Realtors are unintentionally reaching a vast audience.

Recently, I challenged social media guru, David Meerman Scott, to come up with the top ten ideas that could help the CENTURY 21 brand reach its audiences (see post: http://www.webinknow.com/2008/10/top-10-ideas-fo.html). A few days later another reader responded that just by engaging in the conversation online the post had reached #6 in organic search on Google. Evidence that social media does have an impact on search.

In my humble opinion, the medium does send a message, but ultimately it is the message that drives readership, participation, conversation and relationships. Granted, as a professional communicator I feel confident that I could gin up the conversation level, but it takes the skills of a professional Realtor to take it from the blog post to the closing table. I think its great that so many people are turning on to basic communication principles and attempting to leverage them for business, but at the same time not everyone has the skill set to be an engaging writer.

My advice to professional Realtors is to use social media to promote and market, but don’t get hung up creating buzz for an online persona. Drive business by focusing on proving value-added information. Tell consumers what the First time homebuyer tax credit could mean to them or explore what financing options are available in today’s market? Engaging consumers with information they want is the key regardless of the medium.

Sender – Message – Channel – Receiver
Same as it ever was.

Matt Gentile, PR Director
Century 21 Real Estate

We do almost zero “traditional” marketing. No cold-calling, no door knocking, no print advertising, no TV, no radio. We do mail a hard copy newsletter to a very small segment of our business.

I always ask new clients how they found us. Invariably, the answer is, “On the Internet”. Sometimes I can get it down to a specific site, or even a specific post. The vast majority of time I can not.

I could speculate and make assumptions. Since my blog gets 4x the unique visits of my “Web 1.0″ site, is it safe to assume it generates 4 times the clients? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s safe to make that assumption as they tend to target and reach different audiences (with a great deal of overlap to boot).

But I do know that virtually every client we have (and have ever had) originates from “the Internet”. So I can pretty well quantify my return on my internet “spend” (though I struggle with valuing my time).

The real problem I see in gathering comparative analytics is this. So I get my clients via the internet. But the internet isn’t why people stay with me, or come back to me, or send their friends to me. I like to think it’s my expertise that does that, or the customer delight we provide. Maybe it’s my personality. Or my stunning good looks. (No, it’s certainly not the latter, but you get my point.)

Are there other ways I could be getting clients? Of course. Do it enough, do it well, and door knocking still works. Is getting clients via social media easier, or “better”? I don’t know. For me using new media is easier and better then traditional methods. Mostly (I think) because I enjoy it. I like sitting at a keyboard and writing. I hate the thought of door knocking — partly because I don’t like people knocking on my door and mostly because I suck at it. Some people would rather slit their wrists than write a blog post.

We’re all too different, and there are too many variables that can not be controlled to really understand if Method A is superior to Method B. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa.

We do almost zero “traditional” marketing. No cold-calling, no door knocking, no print advertising, no TV, no radio. We do mail a hard copy newsletter to a very small segment of our business.

I always ask new clients how they found us. Invariably, the answer is, “On the Internet”. Sometimes I can get it down to a specific site, or even a specific post. The vast majority of time I can not.

I could speculate and make assumptions. Since my blog gets 4x the unique visits of my “Web 1.0″ site, is it safe to assume it generates 4 times the clients? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s safe to make that assumption as they tend to target and reach different audiences (with a great deal of overlap to boot).

But I do know that virtually every client we have (and have ever had) originates from “the Internet”. So I can pretty well quantify my return on my internet “spend” (though I struggle with valuing my time).

The real problem I see in gathering comparative analytics is this. So I get my clients via the internet. But the internet isn’t why people stay with me, or come back to me, or send their friends to me. I like to think it’s my expertise that does that, or the customer delight we provide. Maybe it’s my personality. Or my stunning good looks. (No, it’s certainly not the latter, but you get my point.)

Are there other ways I could be getting clients? Of course. Do it enough, do it well, and door knocking still works. Is getting clients via social media easier, or “better”? I don’t know. For me using new media is easier and better then traditional methods. Mostly (I think) because I enjoy it. I like sitting at a keyboard and writing. I hate the thought of door knocking — partly because I don’t like people knocking on my door and mostly because I suck at it. Some people would rather slit their wrists than write a blog post.

We’re all too different, and there are too many variables that can not be controlled to really understand if Method A is superior to Method B. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa.

We do almost zero “traditional” marketing. No cold-calling, no door knocking, no print advertising, no TV, no radio. We do mail a hard copy newsletter to a very small segment of our business.

I always ask new clients how they found us. Invariably, the answer is, “On the Internet”. Sometimes I can get it down to a specific site, or even a specific post. The vast majority of time I can not.

I could speculate and make assumptions. Since my blog gets 4x the unique visits of my “Web 1.0″ site, is it safe to assume it generates 4 times the clients? I don’t know. I don’t think it’s safe to make that assumption as they tend to target and reach different audiences (with a great deal of overlap to boot).

But I do know that virtually every client we have (and have ever had) originates from “the Internet”. So I can pretty well quantify my return on my internet “spend” (though I struggle with valuing my time).

The real problem I see in gathering comparative analytics is this. So I get my clients via the internet. But the internet isn’t why people stay with me, or come back to me, or send their friends to me. I like to think it’s my expertise that does that, or the customer delight we provide. Maybe it’s my personality. Or my stunning good looks. (No, it’s certainly not the latter, but you get my point.)

Are there other ways I could be getting clients? Of course. Do it enough, do it well, and door knocking still works. Is getting clients via social media easier, or “better”? I don’t know. For me using new media is easier and better then traditional methods. Mostly (I think) because I enjoy it. I like sitting at a keyboard and writing. I hate the thought of door knocking — partly because I don’t like people knocking on my door and mostly because I suck at it. Some people would rather slit their wrists than write a blog post.

We’re all too different, and there are too many variables that can not be controlled to really understand if Method A is superior to Method B. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa.

First, the emphasis in the quote is in the original. Check the post. It is my standard practice to say the emphasis is mine if I add it.

Second, I try pretty hard not to mix business (Onboard stuff) with pleasure (this here blog). When I blog at the official Onboard blog, that’s when I think alot about business and convincing people that Onboard is necessary. That those opinions happen to be genuine helps, but I know that blogging at OnBlog is business blogging. But here at Notorious, these are just my personal opinions (and my employer freely disavows them).

Third, when you say “what is seen in new media is a wedge disintermediating the need for such large marketing budgets”… do you mean that as a statement of fact or as a statement of an opinion? You see, Benn, my point is not to poo-poo new media or social media or web or web 2.0. My point is to drive discipline in the conversation.

You read my question as denial — in fact, it is a real question. When I talk about wanting real metrics, that isn’t to denigrate social media; it is a real request, because that would really help me do my job, and help all of you do yours.

I am a skeptic of the whole “web 2.0″ thing since day one of “web 2.0″ not because I hate the technology or think Facebook is bunk. I use Twitter; I’m on Facebook; I blog; I do all the Web 2.0 things…. At the same time, as a marketer, I am a skeptic because so much of the rhetoric over “Web 2.0″ was pure hype without any foundation, any metrics, or any measurable results. Instead, we got anecdotes and storytelling.

Facebook changes the face of marketing? Really? For whom? Do we have any measurable lift over control? I personally haven’t seen any real studies of the impact of social media marketing on ANY industry that didn’t involve teens. Seriously.

So what I want: I want a study of the impact of social media on the practice of real estate. If my job were the VP of Marketing for some big brokerage, that is the study I would commission. Not to prove a point, or disprove a point, but to find out the truth. It continues to amaze me that not one of the companies who are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, into social media and “web 2.0″ marketing has done this.

For folks like me who like to comment, like to debate, like to discuss issues for the sake of discussion, social media is a wonderful hobby. Like you’re commenting on my little blog — I am reaching into a larger conversation. That is true. But all that proves is that social media is a very powerful tool… for conversation, which is its original purpose.

Anecdotally, social media is a very powerful marketing tool — for Onboard. But I do keep track of lift over control. So far, the actual data for Onboard shows the lift to be negligible to the point of non-existent. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t work; simply means I don’t have any data to show that it does or does not. Maybe time will give me that data.

I love that Ines is providing a data point: 75-80% of her business is the result of new media. That’s wonderful data. I’ve heard the same from other agents, like Mariana Wagner.

Okay — now let’s multiply that by some large enough sample size, control for agent quality, so that we’re comparing two groups of agents of relatively equal experience and knowledge, and show that indeed, those agents who do social media achieve either (a) X% increase in revenues, or (b) Y% decrease in costs, or (c) both.

That’s proof, at least in the reduced standards of marketing (as compared to say, physics, which has a rather higher standard of proof).

Is that too much to ask? Am I just being a curmudgeon yellin’ “get off my lawn”?

-rsh

First, the emphasis in the quote is in the original. Check the post. It is my standard practice to say the emphasis is mine if I add it.

Second, I try pretty hard not to mix business (Onboard stuff) with pleasure (this here blog). When I blog at the official Onboard blog, that’s when I think alot about business and convincing people that Onboard is necessary. That those opinions happen to be genuine helps, but I know that blogging at OnBlog is business blogging. But here at Notorious, these are just my personal opinions (and my employer freely disavows them).

Third, when you say “what is seen in new media is a wedge disintermediating the need for such large marketing budgets”… do you mean that as a statement of fact or as a statement of an opinion? You see, Benn, my point is not to poo-poo new media or social media or web or web 2.0. My point is to drive discipline in the conversation.

You read my question as denial — in fact, it is a real question. When I talk about wanting real metrics, that isn’t to denigrate social media; it is a real request, because that would really help me do my job, and help all of you do yours.

I am a skeptic of the whole “web 2.0″ thing since day one of “web 2.0″ not because I hate the technology or think Facebook is bunk. I use Twitter; I’m on Facebook; I blog; I do all the Web 2.0 things…. At the same time, as a marketer, I am a skeptic because so much of the rhetoric over “Web 2.0″ was pure hype without any foundation, any metrics, or any measurable results. Instead, we got anecdotes and storytelling.

Facebook changes the face of marketing? Really? For whom? Do we have any measurable lift over control? I personally haven’t seen any real studies of the impact of social media marketing on ANY industry that didn’t involve teens. Seriously.

So what I want: I want a study of the impact of social media on the practice of real estate. If my job were the VP of Marketing for some big brokerage, that is the study I would commission. Not to prove a point, or disprove a point, but to find out the truth. It continues to amaze me that not one of the companies who are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, into social media and “web 2.0″ marketing has done this.

For folks like me who like to comment, like to debate, like to discuss issues for the sake of discussion, social media is a wonderful hobby. Like you’re commenting on my little blog — I am reaching into a larger conversation. That is true. But all that proves is that social media is a very powerful tool… for conversation, which is its original purpose.

Anecdotally, social media is a very powerful marketing tool — for Onboard. But I do keep track of lift over control. So far, the actual data for Onboard shows the lift to be negligible to the point of non-existent. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t work; simply means I don’t have any data to show that it does or does not. Maybe time will give me that data.

I love that Ines is providing a data point: 75-80% of her business is the result of new media. That’s wonderful data. I’ve heard the same from other agents, like Mariana Wagner.

Okay — now let’s multiply that by some large enough sample size, control for agent quality, so that we’re comparing two groups of agents of relatively equal experience and knowledge, and show that indeed, those agents who do social media achieve either (a) X% increase in revenues, or (b) Y% decrease in costs, or (c) both.

That’s proof, at least in the reduced standards of marketing (as compared to say, physics, which has a rather higher standard of proof).

Is that too much to ask? Am I just being a curmudgeon yellin’ “get off my lawn”?

-rsh