Marjorie Clayman’s Writing Portfolio

Professional writing profile of Marjorie Clayman

Margie Clayman

Myth: Agencies are Bad News

by

Full disclosure – seeing as how I work at a family-owned full-service marketing firm, this post could be construed as a bit self-serving. However, I also happen to really believe what I’m about to tell you. For what it’s worth!

There are a lot of commentaries out there about why companies today don’t need to work with an agency. Here are a few that I’ve come upon over the last year or so.

Jason Falls noted that agencies consistently struggle with social media

Jeremiah Owyang posited that social media boutiques are kicking the butts of traditional agencies

Business Insider just published an article noting that the traditional media buying agency is dead (there’s that ole “is dead” again!)

And then of course there are the multitudes of comments I see online. Agencies will swindle you at every turn. Agencies will try to sell you on SEO best practice and end up getting you black listed. Agencies will give you bad advice and then ask you to buy them dinner. Agencies are like the ones presented in the show Mad Men.

Some agencies really are that bad

I have heard people I know and respect tell stories that make me ashamed for all of agency-kind. There are traditional agencies who still insist that social media is a passing fad. There are agencies who don’t think websites are, well, necessary. There are agencies who really do pass on simply awful advice and then ask you to pay through the nose. These are not myths. Most unfortunately.

But this is not also the way every agency works. In fact, if I may put this thought into your head, now more than ever is a time when the “traditional” agency could be of great service, if only companies were open-minded enough to consider the potential benefits of the agency-client relationship.

What can an agency do for you?

There are several reasons why agencies are in fact NOT bad news. I summed up this belief in a post I wrote for Dawn Westerberg awhile back called The Many Headed Employee. Factually, the world of marketing is growing and evolving at a pace that is hard for anyone to keep up with – even if that is your entire raison d’être . People who are running a business need time to do just that – run their businesses. But there is a growing sentiment out there that if you’re a business owner, you need to be able to do everything tied to your business, including marketing. Business owners are feeling the pressure to design their own websites, run their social media marketing initiatives, design their own ads, and so on.

Why do that to yourself?

Let’s get a little more precise.

Problem: Your website is not showing up well in search and you know enough to know that you need to optimize it.

Potential Solutions: This article from Clickz.com delineates three main options you have once you decide you need to optimize your site. You can try the “do it yourself” method, you can hire a black hat SEO agency, or you can try a white label, legitimate SEO agency.

Where an agency can help: Let’s say you opted for solution 3 – going with a high-quality SEO agency. Fair enough. You might think that a traditional agency wouldn’t be needed there. However, if you are working with an agency that has its hands in a lot of your marketing tactics, that agency can help give the SEO agency a more deep and holistic insight into your company. Sometimes the words that perform the best on Google are not the actual words that would help your company the most. An SEO agency can’t always know that and you might not have the time or inclination to interface with them in that kind of detail. An agency can serve as a liaison between your company and the SEO agency so that your website gets optimized in, well, the most optimal way possible.

Problem: Your company needs a new website.

Possible solutions: You could develop your website in-house, learning CSS and DreamWeaver or content management systems in your free time. You could hire a web development firm. The possibilities are almost endless.

How an agency can help: Let’s forget for the moment that many agencies are also capable of designing and implementing websites. What is the argument for an agency assisting you with this rather than you and your team doing everything in-house? Apart from the fact that your agency knows all of the possible places that could drive traffic to your website, and apart from the fact that your agency should already be well-versed in how you want to speak to your existing and potential customers, it is highly advantageous in the business world to have an outside opinion.

Sometimes our businesses are like our kids – we’re so close to them and they seem so perfect and KNOWN to us that we can’t see any problems or flaws. A good agency can take a step back and say, “Yes, that’s the terminology you use within your walls, but how does your customer talk about your products or services? How does the industry define these terms?” Moreover, an agency can approach your website with an already existing knowledge of what types of creative you like. An agency can look at your website and say, “No one is going to know how to navigate this.” An agency can help you make sure you have a viable call-to-action on every page and ways to track other marketing tactics via your web analytics.

Problem: Your Twitter campaign can’t be correlated to any sales.

Possible solutions: You could just quit altogether. You could contact a Twitter expert. You could keep trying the same thing, hoping it will all start to work eventually.

How an agency can help: A well-rounded agency (yes they do exist) can help you look at social media marketing through the lens of a fully integrated marketing initiative. If your Twitter campaign isn’t generating sales, an agency can offer you an outside perspective of why that might be the case. Rather than simply saying that you’re probably just doing something wrong, which a 100% social media consultant may do, an agency can look at who is following you and help you analyze whether those people are likely consumers of your product. An agency can do research to determine if any of your competitors or customers are even on Twitter. More to the point, an agency worth its weight in salt can step back and say, “You know, this doesn’t seem to be working, but here is another solution.”

A good marketing firm can offer you insights into your message, how you are driving people to your website, and what those visitors to your website may experience once they get there. From start to finish, the outside perspective of an agency can help take one facet of your marketing and plug it in to the full puzzle that is stretching out before you.

Just in case you think the agency I am describing here is mythical, I can tell you that our agency – the one I work for – does all of this and more. There are, I’m sure, plenty of agencies who could assist in multitudinous ways that you have not even considered.

So what do you think? Are agencies really bad news, or is it possible that there may be another story here? What has your experience with agencies been? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

PS – this post is the first in the Alphabet of Marketing Myths series, which will publish for the next 25 Mondays. If you want to keep up on this series, feel free to subscribe!

First Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/daviderickson/4252172494/ via Creative Commons

Second Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zstasiuk/5650719702/ via Creative Commons

I hate the term “thought leader”

by

Have you ever tried to talk to a friend or family member who is not really enmeshed in social media about social media stuff? Have you said something like, “Wow, so and so just retweeted my post on Twitter and gave me a plus one on it via Google Plus and then called me a thought leader!” If so (and why wouldn’t you say something like this?) you were probably greeted with a blank stare, a pregnant pause, or a, “Is that good?” There are a lot of new words and phrases that are pouring out of the online world. Some of them are useful. I think. I can’t really think of any 100% useful ones right now. But a lot of them are really starting to drive me nuts. At the top of this latter list is the term “thought leader.”

What does this mean in the online world?

I think the term “thought leader” evolved because people became uncomfortable with calling themselves “influential” or “influencers.” Truth be told, I think the phrase “thought leader” means a lot of things in the world of social media. It could be synonymous with “innovative” in some cases. It could be synonymous with “a good predictor of the future.” Or, let’s just be honest, it could be another way of categorizing “the A-lister,” the “cool kids,” etc. However you slice it, it has always felt to me like using the phrase “thought leader” especially in a self-referential way, was a nice way to avoid looking like a 100% braggart. Thought leader makes you seem very important, but then you are leading people and so that’s kind of honorable and kind of not just about you.

Why I hate this term

I recently discovered that Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote a poem called, “Thought Leader, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.” I know, surprising, right? As it happens, her thoughts perfectly align with my own (who woulda thought?) so I thought I would just share it here.

Thought Leader, How I Hate Thee. Let Me Count The Ways

How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.

I hate thee with all my fight and might

As thou doth blur the line betwixt wrong and right.

As thou doth kill the urge in others to race

To their own thoughts and clarity and light.

I hate thee as thou mask the height

That others can reach with their own grace.

I hate thee for the power thou doth abuse,

I hate thee for thy gathered train.

I hate thee for what you’re making us lose,

I hate thee for at disagreement you complain.

I hate thee for the doors you close,

I hate thee for the thorn in my side causes pain.

Now, let’s put this into some 21st century talk. Understand that this is not about any one person who has been called thought leader, but rather it’s what the term has come to symbolize for me.

If you’re a thought leader, by definition, you lead other peoples’ thoughts.

Why do we want that?

Social Media as a tool is still too new to be able to say that any one way of doing things is right or wrong. What works for one person is not guaranteed to work for another. What works for one company is not guaranteed to work for another. When it comes to facets of life beyond social media the idea of a thought leader makes me even more itchy. Martin Luther King was not a thought leader. All of the thoughts he infused into the world were translations of ideas from everyone ranging from Jesus to Gandhi. Gandhi was not a thought leader, he simply led people by example. He put thoughts out there and other people agreed.

When I hear or see the term “thought leader,” to me it feels like a closed door. When you are called a thought leader in the online world, it seems to mean that everything you say is right and cannot be argued with. After all, you’re a thought leader. If someone disagrees with a thought leader, we get into really mature discussions about “haters” and “haterade.” Because if you disagree with a thought leader, you hate them.

The term thought leader is, to me, what has led to the polarization of the online world in large measure. People feel they must be led by a thought leader, and if two groups of people are following two different thought leaders, obviously both groups are saying that the other leader is wrong. Hence, everyone hates everybody.

Most importantly though, the existence of “thought leaders” insinuates that you or I can’t be thoughtful or possess powerful or influential thoughts. If you are not “branded” (as cattle, not the marketing term) as a thought leader, what are you? A thought follower? Thoughtless? A snack that a brain-hungry zombie would pass by?

If content is still king online, then that means words that make up that content are the princes. The words “thought leader” used as an adjective wield a power that I am highly uncomfortable with. Clearly Elizabeth Barrett Browning didn’t like the ramifications either.

What do YOU think?

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmartin/71654890/ via Creative Commons

 

Social Media Echo Chamber – Myth Or Truth

by

I found an article from Slate Magazine this week that really caught my attention. The title is rather much an attention grabber – it’s called The End of the Echo Chamber. Well, it caught my attention, anyway.

For a long time, it seems, people have been complaining about the online echo chamber effect. Wikipedia has talked about this phenomenon. So has the New York Times. A lot of bloggers I know have also lamented the echo chamber effect, especially when it comes to a major (read popular) blogger saying something that then gets massively shared across the internet, whether the information is good or not.

The theory behind the echo chamber is pretty logical. When you have strong ties to a person online, a person who tends to visit the same sites, read the same stuff, etc., you tend to share a lot of what they write. They also tend to share a lot of what you write. As you meet more people like you, you all tend to start echoing each other, and as time goes by, you start to get a bit like a clique. People who disagree with you are viewed with suspicion or may be categorized as “the haters.” In short, a lot of negativity can result from the echo chamber effect online.

That is, if the echo chamber actually exists.

This article that I read, written by Farhad Manjoo, summarizes a study conducted by Eytan Bakshy soley on Facebook. Bakshy studied how information is shared on Facebook, maneuvering EdgeRank results with Facebook’s permission. After analyzing the behavior of some 250 million people, Bakshy came up with a surprising result. People are actually highly influenced by those with whom they share weak ties, not strong ties. People you have weak ties to are more likely to share information that you might not have found otherwise. Therefore, Facebook proves that there is no echo chamber.

To put it another way, if you see a link in your Facebook feed from a weak tie, you are just as likely to share it as a link from someone you’ve known for 30 years. Therefore, your world really isn’t shrinking online, it’s growing because of an exposure to new people and new information.

Or, as the study suggests:

We found that information shared by a person’s weak ties is unlikely to be shared at a later point in time independently of those friends. Therefore, seeing content from a weak tie leads to a nearly tenfold increase in the likelihood that a person will share a link. In contrast, seeing information shared by a strong tie in News Feed makes people just six times as likely to share. In short, weak ties have the greatest potential to expose their friends to information that they would not have otherwise discovered.

I’ve got problems with this concept

So, first things first. The author of the Slate article notes that because Facebook is promoting the study, and because Facebook gave Bakshy permission to do the study, the online network is probably pretty pumped that they come out smelling like roses. “We are opening your world. It’s the open graph, only, like, it’s your life!” Biased studies should always raise the eyebrows, vulcan style.

However, I have another problem with this concept, too. As I engage in Triberr and as I subscribe to more and more blogs, the same concepts and the same ideas are appearing again and again. Whether or not these people influence each other, something is influencing people in the online world to write about the same stuff. Maybe it’s a desire for traffic – how many articles about SOPA and PIPA did you see this week? Maybe it’s to show up well in Google searches – the number of posts about Pinterest over the last few weeks is pretty stunning. Or maybe it is just to try to get on the radar of a popular blogger. With Chris Brogan and Guy Kawasaki highly promoting Google Plus, is it really a surprise that a lot of people are out there writing about the same thing?

Methinks not.

Furthermore, and I haven’t read the entire study so I don’t know if it is addressed in there, but at least in the article, there doesn’t seem to be a differentiation between some important things like how you got to “friend” those weak ties on Facebook or the types of information people were sharing in their news feeds. For example, let’s say I share a lot of stuff from a person who would be  a “weak tie.” The stuff they post is a lot of funny pictures and videos that amuse me. Is that really widening my world and preventing the echo chamber? I might share stuff from a person I have strong ties to that is about our friendship and not about similar views. I might comment on items that I *have* seen all over the place.

To put it succinctly, it seems to me like there are too many variables to actually be able to state that 1 + 1 = 2. What is this “information” we are speaking of?

What do you think of this study? Do you think it’s just out there to prove Facebook is really awesome, or do you think there really is no echo chamber in the online world?

I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaljourney/5573215501 via Creative Commons

 

#womenwednesday The Cussing Game

by

I have to just go on ahead and say something. Are you ready? It might ruffle your feathers a little bit, so be ready.

I think the romanticization of swearing in blog posts is really, really stupid.

Phew. I feel better.

I remember when I first started blogging and I heard about bloggers who were called things like “edgy,” “brave,” or otherwise “awesome.” The majority of people so labeled write blog posts that kind of feel like you ran into a sailor who decided to write about content marketing, social media, or something related. Bloggers labeled “edgy” or “brave” average 2-3 f-bombs a post. Often their headlines get you started with a nice f-bomb or how “crappy” something is or how they’re calling BS or how so and so is an a-hole, etc.

*yawn*

What’s really interesting is that a lot of female bloggers seem to have found success in the online world not because they are writing content that is particularly useful or actionable but rather because they are writing content that is “edgy and brave.” In other words, they are cussing a lot.

Oh my, a woman who swears! How AWESOME!

Or is it?

I’m no prude

Let me take one possible response to this post out of play immediately. It would be easy to assume that I am writing this from the perspective of some fragile little lady who just thinks swearing is the worst thing since unsliced bread. To be honest, and to my father’s chagrin, I have quite the potty mouth, especially when playing Mario Brothers on the Wii, apparently. I can’t sing some of my most favorite songs in polite company because they are rife with yucky words. Cussing is not something I think about if I’m in familiar company or in a setting where it doesn’t seem completely inappropriate.

‘Nuff said, right?

So why does blogging f-bombs p…tick me off?

Truthfully, the act of incorporating cuss words into blog posts doesn’t really rub me the wrong way. I mean, it depends on the blog site, I suppose. If you are writing as the CEO of a company, it’s my personal opinion that you shouldn’t sit there and write like you’re a rapper straight outta Compton. But that’s just me. A blogging style is a blogging style.Who am I to tell anyone what to do?

What bugs me is a two-fold issue. First, there is the omnipresent feeling that if you are using cuss words in your blog posts, you are REALLY at the peak of the blogging game. Ain’t nobody holding you back, man. You are going to write naughty words and you’re going to use them as often as possible.

This strikes me as a very juvenile way to approach writing, especially writing that is often developed in a professional setting. Now, maybe I’m crazy (many of accused me of such), but if I am sitting down with a new client, am I going to sit there and talk like Cartman from South Park? Am I even going to discuss my favorite scenes from South Park? I wouldn’t. So here on my blog, which is an online representation of my professional self, I do not use that kind of language or those kinds of allusions.

The other problem I have though is that there seems to be a sentiment that a woman blogger can make a bigger splash if she cusses as much as possible. If you run down the list of some of the most highly-trafficked blog sites run by women, you are likely to see a plethora of unsavory words. These women are literally shining with the “I’m as macho as any man” aura. They’re going to be tough and they’re going to cuss and they’re going to call people out and talk about how stupid everyone else is.

Why is that awesome again?

The Liz Strauss model

Personally, I would love to see more women given kudos who write like Liz Strauss. Other women who fall into this category include Lisa Petrilli, Heidi Cohen, Peg Fitzpatrick, and Sherree Worrell. These women do not need to add a layer of 6″ thick machismo to their blogs for the excellent content to get shared and noticed. They are applauded, like many male bloggers are, because their posts are really, really good. There is content people can use. There is content that is helpful.

Now that’s a concept. Applauding bloggers for writing good content. Huh.

If you’re a cusser, you’re a cusser.

Of course, there are women who just genuinely are potty mouths and don’t really care what anybody thinks, just like there are men who don’t care what kind of language they use. That’s groovy and stuff. I would still posit that you are not wreaking of professionalism when you write that way, but that’s just me and my background. However, if a person is writing in a manner true to him or herself, you can tell. And their content will still have substance. The people who are just cussing because it’s “cool” you can also identify pretty easily. For example, their content really doesn’t leave you thinking anything other than, “Wow, that was a lot of cuss words for such a short post.”

Am I on to something here? Am I *really* crazy? What are your thoughts on this issue? I’d love to hear ’em!

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ventriloblog/15498679/ via Creative Commons

New Series: An alphabet of marketing myths

by

For the next half a year, or 26 weeks, as it were, we’re going to be talking about various marketing myths that I’ve seen floating around the online world for the last year. I’m going to be honest. My sincere hope is that this series will help make these myths die. I’m not a cruel person, but sometimes one has to be harsh.

So, here, in alphabetical order, are our topics for the next 26 Mondays. I hope you are looking forward to this as much as I am! It should create some spirited conversations!

1. Agencies are bad news

2. Blogging will work as long as you’re awesome

3. Community makes the world go round

4. Danger lies in not trying everything

5. E-Newsletters are easy to create and send

6. Failure is sexy

7. Glorification of others is the way to your dreams

8. Having a plan is lame

9. Integrated marketing means using Facebook AND Twitter

10. Just doing it yourself works best

11. Killing all non-social media tactics is advisable

12. Logos and Brands are synonymous

13. Marketing is just talking to people

14. Nothing should be off-limits on a corporate blog

15. Opens are the best way to measure email marketing success

16. People who like you will buy from you

17. Quit advertising. It doesn’t work.

18. ROI relates to your mother

19. Social media marketing is about engagement

20. Twitter can work for any business

21. Understanding marketing is no longer necessary

22. Very few obstacles lie in the way of content marketing

23. Websites are a piece of cake

24. X plus your time equals X

25. Your priorities are right on target

26. Zebras could do social media marketing

 

So there you have it. Are you psyched? The bloodbath will begin Monday the 23rd of January. Stay tuned!

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54470160@N08/5076429087/ via Creative Commons

A Little Person Blogger or a Little Person Who Blogs

by

I’ve had some really interesting conversations over the last couple of days, and while these conversations are resulting in a “musing” more than a “social media” or a “marketing” post, I wanted to share the results of what I have been talking about with various friends and family members.

It all started on Saturday. I was conversing with several people on a thread about Pinterest and once again mentioned the fact that I hate generalizations. Dan Perez pointed out that I say that an awful lot. In a sort of blink response, I said that I probably hate generalizations because I have been dismissed so often as a result of generalizations having to do, quite simply, with the fact that I’m about a foot shorter than the “average” bear. As a kid, doctors showed me chart after chart showing how my height was “below normal.” My pinky fingers are curved and therefore I must have *something* wrong with me. At restaurants I often get skipped over even though I’m next in line because people assume that I’m somebody’s kid (increasingly enchanting as I get older and older).

I don’t like being victimized by these generalizations, and therefore, I do my best not to lump other people together based on other generalizations. It’s a gut thing.

Peter Dinklage

The next series of conversations occurred last evening during the Golden Globes. Peter Dinklage won a Golden Globe for his role in Game of Thrones. I noted how wonderful and gratifying it was to see a Little Person earn kudos for acting, and not for a show like “Little People Big World.” As I was feeling like maybe the tide was finally turning for Little People, a friend of mine posted to my Facebook page a link regarding the “shout out” that Peter included at the end of his thank you speech. He mentioned a guy named Martin Henderson, and as the music was cutting him off, he asked the audience to “Google him.” My friend had. As it turned out, Martin Henderson had been standing outside a pub when a gang of miscreants picked him up and tossed him into the air (because dwarf tossing is a good hobby). Henderson may have to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

The high and the low of these two conversations is creating quite a whirlwind in my head today. So I thought I would talk to you about it.

The Lack of Humanity in the Treatment of Little People

Compared to a lot of people who are categorized as “Dwarf,” I am very fortunate. I am 4’5, which is on the tall end of dwarfism. I do not have Achondroplasia, which means that my body is proportional and I do not have any bone or muscle problems tied to my condition. That being said, I am enough “below the norm” that my experience, I find, is more relatable to Little People than it is to just “people.”

That being said, I have been acutely aware, my whole life, of how poorly Little People are treated. Whether it’s Hollywood, TV commercials, or people posting ads to Craigslist asking for “midgets to perform at parties,” I have always been amazed at how little society seems to care about the fact that Little People are so often abused and maltreated. In fact, more often than not, these sad occasions are greeted with laughter as opposed to outrage. People laughed at the “Dwarf tossing” jokes in Lord of the Rings, which were completely gratuitous. Another friend of mine even informed me that a politician is arguing that government has no right to ban dwarf tossing. Really.

What do I do?

When I was in college I went to see a presentation by an artist who happened to be a Native American. His art was not what we *generally* think of when we think of Native American art, and he said he got a lot of crap from his people about that. “Why aren’t you representing our culture now that you’re finding success?” He just wanted to express himself. He didn’t want to be a Native American artist. He wanted to be an artist.

Similarly, I do not want to be “that Little Person blogger.” I don’t want my whole life to be summed up by the fact that I’m under 60″ tall. In fact, I’ve been trying to separate myself from that reality for years. However, there is also the startling fact that kids who are growing up as Little People right now have precious few people they can look to as role models in the public space. Billy Barty was my main role model when I was a kid, and my experience didn’t really relate to his at all. Over the years there have been a few Little People, like Robert Reich, who managed to make it big without just being “that Little Person.” By being out there and doing his thing, he made a point, maybe without even trying to.

I’m thinking there may be some value to that.

There’s another factor too, though, and that is that the prejudice against Little People is so embedded and so strong in our society that it is a more dangerous world for Little People. I don’t like to go out in a city by myself because you never know when you’ll meet that big group of jerks who wants to harass you – or worse. It’s embarrassing. It’s frightening. And it’s so unnecessary.

What can you do?

If you are interested in this issue, there are two super easy ways you can help me and other Little People out. First- be vocal. If you see someone using the word “midget” suggest that they could choose a far less offensive word. If you see a Little Person being harassed, speak up.

Also, I created a Facebook page awhile back called Spread the News: the Word Midget is Offensive and Hurtful. If you are of a mind, show your support simply by liking it. I don’t converse there much anymore, but 1,495 people like it as of today. That’s a brightly shining star.

There are, of course, tons of groups of people who receive similar treatment. I hate all injustices. But for today, I’m focusing on one that affects me directly. And on Martin Luther King Day, I’m going to go ahead and fling out a dream that one day Little People will just be “people”  who happen to be little.

That will be a great day indeed.

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clobby/379764 via Creative Commons