Image credit: antistatist.org

Last week Eduardo Saverin – one of the founders of Facebook – gave up his US citizenship. He was 100% legally entitled to do so. When asked why he was renouncing his citizenship, he noted: “I was born in Brazil, I was an American citizen for about 10 years. I thought of myself as a global citizen.” Of course, some commentators suspected that there was another reason Saverin suddenly decided to ‘go global’:

“Saverin, as you may have heard, has renounced his U.S. citizenship and will avoid paying capital gains taxes on windfall profits after Facebook goes public tomorrow. As the company’s co-founder, Saverin’s 4 percent share of the company is worth around $4 billion, give or take a few shekels.”

We may never know what was in Saverin’s heart, but let’s assume for the sake of discussion that his decision was motivated by a desire to save money on taxes. Is there really anything wrong with renouncing your citizenship if it might save you close to $400 million?

The Social Contract

To me, the answer is simple: it is absolutely wrong! When you become a citizen of a country, you enter into a “social contract.” And no, I don’t mean the privacy policy on Facebook, but rather a contract to which “individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their natural rights.”

In Saverin’s case, in exchange for taking advantage of the United States’ incredible higher education system, its protection of free expression, and encouragement of innovation, he agreed to pay the country back by paying taxes on any gains he incurred. Now this is where the difference between a legal contract and a social contract becomes a little sticky. Legally, he was entitled to renounce his citizenship prior to having to pay $400 million in capital gain taxes, but socially, when it was time for him to repay his country for all the support they provided him, he broke the contract.

Think of it like this: you go to a fancy restaurant and spend several hours dining with your spouse. The wait staff is perfectly attentive and the food is incredible. When you are finished, you ask to speak to the manager. You tell him that the food was horrible and you are going to write a scathing review on Yelp if he doesn’t give you 50% off the bill. Reluctantly, he agrees. You leave without giving the waiter a tip.

Legally, you are perfectly in the right here, but socially, you’ve violated two contracts with the restaurant: first, that you will pay for the food that you enjoyed and second, that you’ll subsidize the cost of the restaurant’s staff by leaving a tip. Imagine what would happen if every patron who came into a restaurant acted like this; most likely, the price of food would increase by more than 100% – to cover the expected 50% discount on the food and to cover the anticipated lack of a tip to the waiter – and some restaurants might even ask for pre-pay before a patron receives food (like gas stations today).

And this is basically what might happen as a result of Saverin’s “stiffing” of the US government. Already there is proposed legislation that will force ex-pats to pay up if they ‘dash and dine’ like Saverin did.

Is Man Evil or Good?

It strikes me that Saverin only came to this decision as a result of two factors: first, because he had a lot of money, and second, because he had talented lawyers and accountants on his payroll to make this happen. To put it another way, the greater your wealth or power, the easier it is (and the more likely you are) to break the social contract (you can argue about whether this is true for legal contracts as well, I suppose).

Michael Moore starts his movie Capitalism: A Love Story with images from bank security cameras of bank robberies, and ends the movie by putting up police “do not cross” yellow tape around a block on Wall Street, declaring it a “crime scene” as a result of the mortgage crisis and subsequent bailout of Wall Street banks. The contrast is somewhat obvious: rob a bank of $10,000, and you go to jail; defraud a country of billions and get bailed out.

His point is this: there’s bipolar argument today about crime – on the one hand, politicians get elected with a “tough on crime” stance, specifically when it comes to crimes like drug dealing, robbery, and murder. Philosophically, this approach could be labeled as Hobbesian in nature: man is inherently evil and we must create laws that assume the worst in man. On the other, politicians argue that we must “deregulate” big business, which will free them to “create jobs” and level the competitive playing field against other countries. This approach is more Kantian, in which it is assumed that man is inherently good and will make the right choices for society, given the opportunity to do so.

This guy saw Saverin's move coming. (Image credit: history-computer)

In fact, however, as Saverin, the big banks, oil companies, chemical companies, and countless other wealthy entities have proven, when it comes to money, the greater the wealth, the more likely it is we should assume the worst in mankind. Give anyone an army of lawyers and accountants and apparently it is impossible to resist the urge to break the social contract. It’s a very Hobbesian conclusion: man is inherently evil, but it’s only when he has the necessary resources does this evil manifest itself!

The Social Contract and Online Marketing?

Since this is an online marketing blog, wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way to seamlessly steer this discussion back to actual Facebook advertising, as opposed to tax evasion schemes of former Facebook founders? Fortunately, there is! It turns out that the social contract is highly relevant to our everyday lives in online marketing. Consider these situations:

– When an agency does great work for a client, bills the client at the end of the month of   work, but the client asks for a discount based on false premises of dissatisfaction;

– When as a marketer, you are asked to promote a product or service that is perfectly legal, but which goes against your own ethical standards;

– When an agency takes on a client that they know will be unsuccessful but will pay the agency a lot of money (there’s an episode of Mad Men that covers this topic)

These are all perfectly “legal” situations, but they break the social contract. And inevitably, the bigger the client (or from the client perspective, the larger the bill), the more tempting it is to break the contract and reap a windfall. And with each incident of a broken social contract, the legalese in advertising contracts gets longer, the distrust between agency and client widens, and the marketing world becomes more Hobbesian and less Kantian. Sometimes fulfilling the social contract means optimizing to a result that benefits the greater whole and not your bottom line. Certainly that’s a rule that everyone in the online marketing world should strive to follow!

- David Rodnitzky, CEO

As if that’s not enough, the weekly category “most improved” winners are getting goodies like free movie tickets.

This thing is on. But if you’ve been watching the numbers, you know we haven’t lacked motivation from the get-go. Who do we credit for that (and for the bounty of prizes)? Meet our captains.

Chicago office coordinator Brittni Hamman, the brains behind the challenge:

Get moving, Chicago. Or else.

Pam Paradiso, Director of Operations and San Mateo motivator supreme:

You can't see us, but we're sprinting.

Hamman, who is not above talking a little trash, backed up her words in week 1, setting the bar high and (we can only assume) brandishing the occasional cattle prod to encourage her Chicago colleagues to clear it.

(Which they have.)

(Every week.)

Paradiso’s approach — walking meetings outside, exhortations for people to walk to lunch and take the stairs — is right in keeping with her focus on office health and happiness. And while her San Mateoans haven’t kept pace with their Chicago colleagues, she’s seen plenty of differences thanks to the challenge.

“There’s definitely more awareness about everything,” she said. “It’s changed people’s habits, for sure. They walk to lunch. They have meetings outside. It’s gotten people to realize how accessible an improved level of fitness is — even if it’s just taking five minutes here and there.”

And there’s been a huge bonus, she added — a particularly important one for a company with two offices and a crew of employees working from homes all across the country.

“There’s an increased awareness of each other,” she said. “It feels like we’re part of a team even more, even between offices.”

That said, there’s a freaking treadmill in the offing, and despite Chicago’s four-week run, Paradiso’s not about to give up.

“We need to step it up,” she said. “I need to step it up.”

And on to the numbers (Chicago, enjoy your roll while you can):

The individual weekly best:

Weekly steps taken:
1. Laura Rodnitzky, Chicago: 197,110
2. Monica Madrigal, San Mateo: 191,456
3. Melissa Bregar, Chicago: 190,715
4. Kristin Kopp, Chicago: 124,263
5. Sean Nowlin, Chicago: 121,734

Weekly miles traveled:
1. Madrigal, San Mateo: 112.38
2. Bregar, Chicago: 99.52
3. Rodnitzky, Chicago: 89.02
4. Kopp, Chicago: 71.60
5. Hillary Read, San Mateo: 70.87

Weekly active score:
1. Madrigal, San Mateo: 18,437
2. Rodnitzky, Chicago: 15,891
3. Bregar, Chicago: 15,423
4. Hamman, Chicago: 10,651
5. Read, San Mateo, 9,633

Most improved (over Week 2):
Steps: Sana Ansari, San Mateo: +73,976
Miles: Ansari, San Mateo: +34.12
Active score: Ansari, San Mateo: +7,938

The weekly numbers, by office:

Weekly average steps/participant (week 2 comp. in parentheses):
Chicago: 79,823 (-1,714)
San Mateo: 61,049 (-3,726)

Weekly average miles/participant (week 2 comp. in parentheses):
Chicago: 38.94 (-.44)
San Mateo: 31.34 (-1.77)

Weekly average active score/participant  (week 2 comp. in parentheses):
Chicago: 6,956 (-502)
San Mateo: 5,632 (-115)

What to watch in week 4: Will the offices turn the tide after a brief dip in week-over-week scores? Will Madrigal’s new (not-so-secret) weapon lead the San Mateo team to an overdue win? Can Sean Nowlin(welcome, gentleman!) continue his creep up the ranks? As always, stay tuned.

- Hillary Read, Marketing Manager

Image credit: mrmomsunite.blogspot.com

Don’t let the title fool you. This is not an anti-Google rant. It’s not praise, either – it falls somewhere in the middle.

Google used to do so much for its clients. When the company was still getting established, and for many years after, it seemed Google went above and beyond to cater to client’s every whim. From lavish parties to an abundance of dedicated resources, Google’s clients lived the good life.

Things are a little different now. We operate in a world where million-dollar (annual) spenders have to call 1-800 numbers for help, and those lucky enough to have dedicated support have to run through fresh intros every six months.

Here’s the funny thing, though – the system works. As frightening as it might seem to get “stuck” with a call center when your account randomly gets reviewed (the shut-off), the level of support is adequate. It’s not the type of support that will always delight customers, but it gets the job done and, frankly, what else matters? Google realized that it could cut back on services without damaging relationships (too much). It certainly doesn’t hurt to own 75%+ of the market, and it doesn’t hurt that most companies need Google more than Google needs them. All of that said, things get done and business keeps humming.

One of Google’s greatest strengths is its platform. AdWords is the ultimate self-serve platform in the world of PPC (yes, I realize many 3^rd parties offer advanced features, but we’re talking about network platforms), and that makes things much easier for the services team. Facebook and MSN (while they’ve gotten better) lag so far behind that their services teams are exposed. Deficient platforms put the burden on services orgs, and if your services group can’t handle it, the customer’s experience suffers.

The Google machine can support minimal service. Other machines, not so much. (Image credit: strategicgrowthanddevelopment)

This is how Google ruined services: by recognizing they could scale back their own service levels – knowing their self-serve platform could handle the load – Google set a new standard in services. Other networks, Facebook in particular, have taken cues from Google and gone straight to a model with minimal support (i.e. no agency support…that’s right, none), and it’s not working out the same way. The problem is that Facebooks of the world aren’t ready to operate like that.

By setting a high bar in the early years and then setting today’s minimal-services trend, Google has created unrealistic expectations for those customers who run on multiple networks. As much as Google customers like to complain about service (I’m lucky enough to have a kick-ass agency rep), it pales in comparison to the garbage other networks put out. I guess, through some circuitous logic, you can blame Google for all the bad service you get from other networks. It’s a Google hater’s dream.

There’s a way to fix this: improve your platform. In the year and a half since Yahoo and MSN merged their search offering, the adCenter platform has made some great strides. Granted, many of these features are just (late) copies of Google offerings, but they’ve changed things quite a bit. At the same time, they’ve rededicated themselves to support (on the agency side, at least). Our agency rep (hey, Vince!) can give our Google rep a good challenge, and that bodes well for adCenter.

In a saturated market offering many options for limited marketing budgets, these improvements have made MSN a more attractive option. This is the lesson upstarts and niche networks haven’t learned yet: until you attain “must use” status, you need to invest in services. It might strike you as egotistical, but marketers control budgets, and if you can’t win them over, you won’t get any. Just because Google did it doesn’t mean your network can do it yet. It’s fun to blame Google for starting the movement, but, at the end of the day, it’s your own fault. Fix it or someone else will get those dollars. Pretty simple, no?

- Sean Marshall, Director of Search Engine Marketing

First, look up a competitor’s Facebook page and look for the “Likes” tab. It’s located on the upper portion of the page, below the cover photo. It looks like this:

"Like" how much data you're about to get...

This tab will show how many lifetime likes your competition has, but there’s a lot more to it.

Click on the tab, and these five useful data points appear:

Tons of good data...what to make of it?

1. Facebook provides the “People Talking About This” metric, which was standard prior to the Timeline-for-brands rollout. What does it mean, exactly? It is the number of unique users who have engaged with the page (liked, shared, commented) in the last seven days. This number shows how you stack up against your competition – who had a bigger number of engaged fans over the last week? If you’re running a robust campaign, and your competition is beating you easily, study their page and their ads – why might theirs be more effective?

2. The “Most Popular Week” is the seven-day period when the most people were “talking about” the page. To take advantage of this information, you can look up this date range on the competitor’s Facebook timeline and see the content posted. You can tie the popularity to a particular post or promotion that worked for your competition and get some ideas from this to improve your own content and promotional strategies.

3. The “Most Popular City” is the area where most “people talking about this” are logged in when they engaged with the page. This might be a geographic region to consider for your brand to target with ads, since Facebook allows geo-targeting by country, state, city and zip code. There are some exceptions to this, though – if Coke’s most popular city is Atlanta (its headquarters), that’s not necessarily a cue for Pepsi to go all-in for the Atlanta market.

4. The “Most Popular Age Group” shows which age range included the highest number of engaged fans. Again, this information might be useful for your brand, since Facebook allows you to segment your ads by age.

5. The People Talking About This/New Likes Per Week metrics are rolled together here. To estimate how many users actually engaged (commented, shared, liked content) with your competitor’s page over the last seven days, simply subtract the number of “people talking about this” by “new likes per week.”

This graph is also useful to track unusual activity, such as sudden drops in engagement and fan acquisition. If your page has had any unusual activity, you can make certain conclusions about whether it’s isolated or Facebook-wide by checking the trend line of your competitor’s graph.

If that all seems like a lot of data about your competitors, well, yeah – it kind of is, right there for all to see. So how will you use it to benefit your brand?

- Clark Sioson, Facebook Account Manager

About a month ago, I wrote a post about using Automated AdWords Bidding successfully for the first time. At the time, I believed I was writing a post that showcased how clever I was in figuring out how to use an aspect of AdWords that I had previously dismissed as only useful for folks that don’t know how to professionally manage paid search accounts.

However, when I look back at that post, I see something somewhat personal and quite dark – something even the most experienced account managers can fall prey to – pre-judgment. After all, so my original thinking went, Automated AdWords Bidding is stupid because I’m letting Google decide where to bid and how much to bid (up to my stated limits), therefore Google will choose what’s best for Google and not for my client.

But, let’s take a step back now…

What is “AdWords Automated Bidding”? It’s a tool.

Is a tool inherently good or bad? No. A tool is only good or bad based on how it’s being used.

How do most people use AdWords Automated Bidding? They use it as a substitute for actively managing their campaigns, which isn’t ideal for account success.

How did I use the tool? As a vehicle for professional paid search management. And the tool met my expectations and needs.

Now, please go back and watch the above clip from Apollo 13. In it, the NASA engineers were tasked with saving the lives of astronauts using a bunch of items not well-suited for that purpose. However, because the engineers were bright, creative, out-of-the box thinkers, they were able to successfully accomplish their task.

Pre-judgment caused me to not act optimally on my client’s behalf as it pertained to Automated AdWords Bidding. Fortunately, I saw the error of my ways and coached myself to success.

Recently, AdWords announced a whole bunch of changes that most in the paid search industry are very upset about. I also question what AdWords is doing…especially making “rotate ads” a 30-day maximum setting.

But, then, I “remove myself” from the situation and look at it from a more objective perspective.

Am I pre-judging what Google is doing? Yes.

Can my clients and I actually profit from Google’s changes? Yes.

Are Google’s changes actually a disguised opportunity for future growth and success for my clients and me? Yes.

How might that be? I’m working on it.  :.)

It now becomes incumbent on my teammates and me to make Google’s changes work for us instead of being controlled by them.

Game on!

- Todd Mintz, Senior SEM Manager