With the release of Facebook’s new ad format, there is a lot of debate about whether or not this is a step in the right direction for social marketing or whether or not this type of marketing will just fall by the wayside as another more highly sophisticated version of “spam.”

As a Facebook user and a marketer, I can see both sides to this argument but I think the positives outweigh the negatives here.  As a user will I want to join every corporate “group” or sign-up for every application a “friend” sends my way?  Absolutely not.  But will I join a group like “Volkswagen” because I own one of their cars - yes.  In many cases, there are clear benefits for me joining a group that I have a vested interest in; such as special offers, messaging with other Volkswagen owners, etc.  In my opinion, Facebook is taking form as the new word of mouth of our generation. 

However, I do agree with Mark Hopkins that other more aggressive marketing tactics like “beacon” will have negative affects on the Facebook community and could cause increased abandonment.  I think advertisers and more importantly, Facebook, needs to be smart about the way this site is used.  Radically changing the site and intended use could cause a lot of backlash among the community of users.

The debate will go on, but regardless of the outcome, it will help pave the way for more creative ways of thinking about marketing in general. While the approach is novel in the consumer world, is IT ready for an environment such as this? IT buyers consistently rely on word of mouth recommendations from their colleagues, but remain skeptical of “vendor pitches”. B2B trends tend to follow consumer trends, so time will tell. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

A common question I hear from our technology vendor clients is how can they get IT pros to respond to follow-up marketing efforts after they download a content asset such as a white paper, webcast or podcast.  Too often we hear that telemarketing is used as the method of follow-up and the results are less than favorable.  I always advise my clients to use the same method for re-marketing as they did to capture the prospect’s information in the first place.  The audience has already demonstrated a comfort level or preference with that method - why change it? 

This seems like marketing common sense.  So why do so many vendors still use telemarketing when the audience is in the online research phase of the buying process? Last June, Garrett Mann posted on this topic, quoting that IT buyers are twice as likely to give vendors a valid email address than a valid phone number (MarketingSherpa & KnowledgeStorm, Connecting through Content, June 2007). The point was reinforced at the TechTarget Online ROI Summit this past September where many of our panel members (IT professionals) stated that they are not likely to answer or return a marketing call from an IT vendor.  They would rather have the vendor follow up via email with another relevant offer or content piece.  IT professionals receive so many phone calls from vendors each day that they simply can not respond nor are they ready to. 

So how can marketers help move prospects through the buying cycle, past research and on to consideration?  One of our presentations at the Online ROI Summit, Selecting Content to Match the Buying Process, addressed this with some best practices for choosing content type and topic to match the various stages of the purchase cycle.  This presentation addresses:

1. Understanding the various stages of the IT buying cycle and the effectiveness of  different media types and topics at each stage
2. Mapping out a plan to have the appropriate content pieces which will move prospects through the cycle
3. Setting expectations on the number and quality of leads based on the content types and topics you are offering

During the TechTarget Online ROI Summit, I heard a lot of interesting information from the Senior IT Panel, comprised of IT professionals who are actively engaged with the IT buying process.  As I sat in the storage specific breakout session, there were a lot of questions around content and the types of content IT storage pro’s consume during particular stages of the IT buying cycle.  We all know as marketers that “Content is King”.  We are constantly asking each other “in what format” but the question we might also want to ask is “by who?”  And by “who” I mean editorial, analyst or vendor.  To my surprise (and possibly the surprise of many in the room) there was a clear definition from the panel as to when they access these three different types of content.

Hands down, editorial content was considered the “go to” resource for IT Pros when it comes to researching new and emerging products or solutions.  In the opinion of the IT pro, editorial content gives them a good understanding of the product or solution as a whole.  For the IT pro, they are not looking for any vendor spin, they are simply trying to grasp the technology.  Features such as “Learning Guides”, “Schools” and “All in One Guides” were mentioned as a great way for an IT Pro to gain specific knowledge around technology options and implementation.

The conversation around editorial content being used as a resource for IT pros was really no surprise, after all that is the intention.  However, what really surprised me was how they use analyst reports, white papers and studies.  These analyst assets are pulled into the last phase of IT buying process to first ensure no vendor was forgotten in the Research Vendors/Products stage and left off the short list.  The other use for these analyst assets is during the Decision Making stage when vendor recommendations are made to the CIO/Final Decision Maker.  IT pros are using analyst assets as supporting document when presenting the vendor of choice.  Check out this blog from CIO Mind where a CIO discusses how he and his colleagues use analyst information.

These guys made it extremely clear that analyst reports should be part of every technology marketers campaign or you risk being left off that short list of recommendations that goes to the final decision maker.