The online/social media environment has greatly amplified the opportunities for customers who love you (or hate you) to spread the word – and spread it more frequently, to a broader audience and with a greater array of tools.
Colloquy has released a white paper reflecting the results of an October 2008 survey that measured the intersection between reward program membership and online word-of-mouth (WOM) activity among those members.
While I hope it won’t come as a big surprise, membership in and usage of a brand’s reward program is a significant predictor of a consumer’s likelihood to speak positively about your brand online. The more active the frequent user/shopper/flyer in your program, the greater the chance that you will experience the happy halo effect of him/her praising you online. This is particularly true among women, who have become a driving force in terms of discussing and sharing products and experiences on the Web (Motrin, anyone?).
The larger take-away here – the hardest one, I think, for large companies to absorb - is that everything is connected now. The idea that you could treat your customers one way and your employees another, without affecting your public persona, is no longer relevant. Cut your charitable activities without the “outside world” finding out? Forget it. Increase mileage requirements in your frequent flyer program, and it will not only affect the opinions of your members, but also those members’ Twitter readers (who may not even be your customers).
One person with an anonymous blog and a catchy URL can impact your reputation around the world.
Of course The New Champion Customers is just a tip of this iceberg, but it offers an interesting angel and chock-full of great charts. Take a look.
I saw an interesting story today about Virgin America – a company infamous for its own tongue-in-cheek advertising approach – suing an ad industry blog for libel.
It seems that Adrants posted a parody ad showing a photograph of the US Airways Flight 1549 jet in the Hudson River along with Virgin’s name and mark, plus the message “Fly Virgin.” Here’s the ad:
The initial blog post, titled “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin,” provided a disclaimer that the ad’s origin was “suspect” but also mused that perhaps the ad was real given that Virgin had “turned ugly situations to its advantage before.”
While Adrants updated its original post to point out that the ad was a spoof (and removed it altogether after 3 days), Virgin went ahead and filed a complaint in a California district court claiming, among other things, ”trademark infringement, deceptive advertising and defamation.” The outrage! How dare you take advantage of such a horrible event… we would never do that. We are forever damaged! GAH!”
Most experts believe that Virgin is on thin ice (pardon the pun) given that the medium (in this case, Adrants) is commonly known to report “news” with a certain irreverence, therefore making it highly unlikely that a blog reader would be confused into believing that the ad was factual.
But is this even a real lawsuit or simply another “real” example of Virgin’s ability to spot and take advantage of a timely marketing opportunity? I vote for the latter.
Crazy kids! What do you bet this lawsuit will disappear altogether after Virgin has squeezed all the word-of-mouth mileage possible out of it?
I’ve never been a big Costco person, probably because I live in an apartment the size of a postage stamp. But just this year – when my mom moved close to one in the New Jersey burbs – I took the leap and bought a membership. Now I love going there: the warehouses are like Disneyland! There’s a pie as big as my couch! Cool!
Sidebar: when I finally did buy, it’s because I saw a specific product I wanted that Costco carried at a great price. I bought enough of that product (plus some gum, I think) to “pay for” the $50 membership fee on my first visit. Making a purchase a no-brainer is every retailer’s goal , no?
Now we get a little glimmer into the company’s customer service smarts, as well. Like many membership-based retailers with preferred shopper programs, it’s easy for Costco to keep track of a member’s purchases and to retain specific transaction-related data, such as the date and time of purchase. It turns out that one of the ways in which Costco delivers value back to members based on this information comes in the form of product recall notifications.
While Costco routinely sends letters to customers who have purchased recalled products, it is now the first major retailer to implement an automated calling service that dials and leaves messages for members warning them of problem products.
Costco uses an external vendor that can make up to 500,000 calls per hour. The company estimates that it has already made 1.5 million calls so far related to the ongoing recall of peanut butter products alone.
Would a company focused only on this quarter’s profitability do the same? Probably not…. especially since Costco will give the customer a refund for any recalled product that is returned to a warehouse (with or without a receipt). But how much is a call like this worth to a customer about to serve tainted food to his or her family? It’s invaluable. And, if the company doesn’t already, it would be fairly straightforward to measure the monetary value of the program.
This is a worthy practice. Let me know if you see holes in it.
Monday January 26th 2009, 9:52 pm
Filed under: advertising, women
Simmons Research’s profile of Super Bowl viewers is fun to peek at as we head into this weekend.
A few highlights:
Folks in the Midwest and the Northeast are likely to watch the game at a higher rate than would be expected based on their percentage of the population overall. Couple this with the fact that 32% of all Super Bowl viewers watched the 2008 game away from home… and you’ll find me throwing a Super Bowl party at a sports bar in Cleveland!
And if I was really smart I’d get one of the game’s big advertisers to pay for it, since Super Bowl viewers are also more likely to have positive feelings toward commercials and say that ads help them get information about new products. And these are hardcore fans: football watchers watch football, period. If they can’t watch a pro game, they’ll watch a college game. If they can’t find a regular season college game, they’ll watch one post season. So if you advertise and like football as a medium, your next marginal sports dollar should most likely be spent on the ol’ pigskin, as well. Not all that interesting, but productive.
Lastly, over 37 million women watched the Super Bowl last year! 37 million. It’s hard to draw any advertising-related conclusions, though, because some women have been known to ”watch” against their will…
Now don’t get too excited – I hope that this is the first in a weekly series presenting tone deaf ads, but we’ll have to see. Companies are scrambling so crazily trying to figure out what to say in this economy that I think the odds are in my favor, but the proof will be in the… tone deaf ads.
Let’s knock it out of the park this first week, at least, OK?
May I present to you… Bessemer Trust. Henry Phipps founded Bessemer over 100 years ago to manage his family’s proceeds from the sale of Carnegie Steel. Today, the firm’s website states that Bessemer manages in excess of $50B in assets for over 1,900 families, and that its “history of serving wealthy families affords us an understanding of the issues that matter to you.”
Really? Let’s review some of the issues that are, in fact, on everyone’s minds these days with regard to the financial markets: Economic meltdown. Uncertainty. Greed. Irresponsibility. Misrepresentation. Anxiety. This means that any financial firm today has a choice to make: either don’t advertise – which is a perfectly acceptable option for now - or advertise a message that is very, very carefully crafted to take these concerns into account.
So I was shocked when I saw Bessemer’s ad in The Wall Street Journal yesterday: a half-page ad with huge type, saying “We invest your money right along with ours. Needless to say, you benefit from some very careful thinking.”
My reaction: “They’re joking. Bessemer is an honorable and discreet company. Why would they get down in the mud with a bunch of other companies that followed this same practice and scr**ed over their investors?” Investing your own funds is no guarantee of anything – it’s not a guarantee of wealth, intelligence, integrity or the “alignment of interest” explained in Bessemer’s ad. Lots of categories currently in the hotseat invest their own funds: venture capital firms, investment banks, mortgage companies… Enron invested its own funds alongside clients, for goodness sake!
To make matters worse, the small type does actually call out some positive characteristics and benefits of being a Bessemer client “as the credit crisis loomed.” Unfortunately, I can guarantee that no one who saw this ad ever read the small type.
Does the firm have an executive tuned in to the American zeitgeist today? If not, they need one; if so, that person needs to get his hearing checked. This is truly a frustrating example of a company deliberately and needlessly putting itself in harm’s way.
I love the E*Trade baby and am so jazzed to see him back!
And not only will he be returing to the Super Bowl, but the company is wisely stretching its $3 million as far as it possibly can with a YouTube page, a Twitter account and a Facebook effort.
E*Trade says that its 2008 Super Bowl ads were viewed more than 5 million times online, and there were 5 million searches for the ads after the game. Social media tracker Collective Intellect also claimed that E*Trade’s spots produced the most positive social media sentiment of any game ads. Check it! Super_Bowl Super_Bowl_advertising ETrade ETrade_baby Super_Bowl
How long did you think I could go in 2009 without talking about Starbucks, hmmm? C’mon, I think 20+ days is pretty good.
The latest ragging I’m going to do is about Starbucks’ weird Obama-based feel-good advertising effort. WHAT does this message have to do with coffee… particularly Starbucks coffee?
“Starbucks and Hands On Network are supporting the President’s call for national service. From January 21-25, 2009, pledge 5 hours to the cause of your choice and Starbucks will salute you with a free Tall brewed coffee in participating U.S. Starbucks stores.” First of all, I think it’s hilarious that a twist on this message is that you need to work 5 hours to *afford* a small cup of Starbucks coffee. That’s priceless. Second, Starbucks is behaving as if its world has not changed. I’m not saying that a brand should give up its principles in a recession – not at all. What I am saying is that (a) consumers process information and behave differently in a down market (like dropping Starbucks in favor of cheaper coffee), and (b) they look at a brand’s behavior differently, as well. Anyone paying attention knows that Starbucks is closing stores and laying people off. It means nothing to me that you did a cute ad. I would much prefer to see you give the money you spent on this ad effort directly to Hands On Network. Or – better yet – lower your prices on Inauguration Day.
And if you wanted to let me know – because I am a loyal Starbucks customer, and exactly the kind of person you want to hold on to now – you could email me. You know where I am. Too bad I’ve never heard from you except when you want me to buy something. I see no indication that Starbucks has grasped its “new reality,” and predict further self-inflicted pain in its future. This company needs a brain transplant, and fast. Starbucks Hands_On_Network
For President Barack Obama
—————————————————————————
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with wornout tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!
Today on my (other) blog Marketing Mojo, I wrote a lengthy post on the necessity of creating real value – vs. sometimes status-driven perceived value – in a down market.
When most people hear “value” they think price, packaging, size, promotion… the standard inward-looking levers a company has at its disposal. But if a company’s key constituents care about philanthropy, then a company’s outward-looking position can create value, as well.
At this point in time, I think the attention being paid to companies’ philanthropic efforts is driven by both “positive” and “negative” factors: (a) positive, because younger generations are more sensitive to the societal impact of the products and services they consume, and (b) negative, in that people are generally so disgusted with the bad behavior and greed exhibited by many companies that there is a heightened demand to “give back.” Whatever the reason… philanthropy is a very real way to engage with stakeholders.
And if we need numbers, it turns out that customers with a favorable impression of a company’s philanthropic efforts are 3x as likely to become loyal customers, and 91% of consumers say they would consider switching (away) if they found out that a company had exhibited ”negative corporate citizenship” behaviors.
Think Ben & Jerry’s or Target or Pfizer or Nike – the very fabric of these companies is inextricably connected to their social efforts. Think about your employer, your own company or the companies from which you purchase products and services… are these organizations doing enough to suit you and, if so, do the right people know about it?
The Financial Timesrecently ran an article claiming that social media networks are a threat to advertising agencies.
I can’t decide whether to respond with a “Duh” or simply say that social media is barely the tip of the iceberg re. the decline of ad agencies. I’m not even sure that social networks can see the iceberg – that’s how far downstream they are from the major problems of the agency community.
There is nothing unique about social media in that – to use it - an agency (or brand) needs to: (a) understand the audience, (b) how, when and why members of that audience have selected the medium in question, (c) what messaging would be most effective as a result, and (d) how to craft that message so that it specifically meets the expectations a user may consciously or unconsciously have in that specific environment (i.e., the same person will consume a message differently when it’s delivered by radio vs. Facebook).
The FT article is a bit of a “when you have a hammer…” situation: it’s written by the paper’s digital media correspondent and cites exactly one study on (only) social media.
If only agencies could fix all their problems by “getting” social media. Agencies are going to need to fundamentally alter their compensation, organization and recruiting models if they are going to pull even with brands forever changed by the economy, a more knowledgeable consumer and the information overload we all wade through every day.
That sound you hear turns out to be the Facebook Police.
I recently twittered about Burger King’s viral campaign to get Facebook members to “unfriend” people in exchange for a free Whopper. In one week, over 82,000 people accessed the app via www.whoppersacrifice.com and unfriended nearly 234,000 friends! If the marketer had been McDonald’s – my favorite – I have to admit that I’d look hard at my so-called ”friends” in exchange for an Extra Value Meal #2…
In any case, it’s good that Americans are so addicted to fast food because Facebook shut down a key part of the app: that being the notification that the unfriended get when they’re thrown overboard for a burger. That was the sweet way the campaign spread: I may be just one person, but if I unfriend 10 folks, then all 11 of us get served (sorry) the Whopper message. After Facebook’s reaction, Burger King pulled the campaign.
It turns out that Facebook’s privacy policy prohibits a member from receiving any kind of notification if he is unfriended. Who knew? I can understand my friend Eric Yaverbaum’s (Bubbletweet) reaction to the actions of the “Facebook police,” but I actually think this is sort of a nice, tiny piece of etiquette in the otherwise turgid sea of the Web: I may not invite you to my parties anymore, but I don’t have to send you a notice telling you so.
My latest experiment is Twitter. I’m a bit late to the game according to some, but better to “tweet” late than never (I think).
Twitter describes itself as a conversation, a service for people to “communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?”
The “what are you doing?” element sounds a lot like Facebook’s “Stephanie Fierman is…” status question, but thankfully more people seem to ignore that forced piece of organization on Twitter and just say whatever they want to say. And unlike Facebook, Twitter only gives you 140 characters (including spaces) to get your thought out. Great for loooong talkers like me.
Here are the basics of Twitter: You sign up at www.twitter.com. Then you cruise for friends. When you find one, go to her Twitter page www.twitter.com@name and “follow” her. Following means that all of her updates will land on your Twitter homepage. The easy way to find interesting people to follow is to snoop around your friends’ pages. Check their lists: who’s following your friend and whom is your friend following? From there, it’s simple to click over to a person’s page and decide to “follow” them, as well. Your home page keeps score: how many people are following you (in other words, how many people are interested enough in what you have to say to have your “tweets” gum up their home pages every day) and how many you are following.
I’m still learning Twitter etiquette, but it’s clear that too terrible an imbalance between your Follows and Following is uncouth: tres tacky to spam lots of people (by asking them to follow you), and equally tacky to be a freeloader who never comments yourself but just follows what others have to say. 2-3 tweets per day seem to be within the acceptable range.
Like Facebook, there are people who unfortunately believe that “Getting on plane now” and “Wow, it’s cold in New York” deserve space on your home page (did I mention you can “unfollow” people, too?). But I’ve found many to have useful insights on politics, marketing, business and other topics that I enjoy perusing, and I try to contribute every day. As a jumpstart, here is Guy Kawasaki’s post on how to get the most out of Twitter. You can also search Twitter at search.twitter.com to see if anyone is talking about a topic of particular importance to you.
So try it! Sign up and follow me at www.twitter.com/stephfierman. Give the service a little time to blossom into something useful. It is true that we’re all faced with information overload, but a lot of that information is entirely useless. If you can use Twitter in a surgical way to enrich your understanding and “tune in” to people you respect, I consider it a net gain.
Outer Mongolia… that’s the place where your favorite stores sometimes locate Customer Service and the Returns desk. It’s all sun-shiny up front when you’re buying, but returning? Not so much.
In November, I pointed out the opportunity to communicate positively with a shopper when he/she is returning an item, rather than turning the event into a hum-drum (or negative) in-and-out transaction. Now comes a survey that drives the point home.
20% of respondents to a survey fielded by Opinion Research Corp. say that their 2007 holiday return experience exceeded their expectations. Only 9% could say the same after the 2008 holiday. Wait time and a lack of adequate staffing were major complaints. That’s rough, because returning customers who have a positive experience are exponentially more likely to shop in the store again and recommend it to others.
Unfortunately, the core of this problem may be an attitude that a consumer buying items has free will and will not put up with a negative service experience, while a shopper trying to return an item has no options. This is short-sighted, at best. Retailers are going to be relying on repeat shoppers – keeping their bases loyal – more than ever. Every contact at every touchpoint will factor into a shopper’s choice of retailers. Don’t overlook those experiences that don’t immediately translate into a sale – returns are on the top of a list that would include parking, bathroom availability and cleanliness. Not the sexiest elements, but vital just the same.
A study has been released by Wharton indicating that far fewer grocery purchases are impulse buys than prior research would indicate. 60% of trips to the supermarket contain no impulse purchases, and the elderly and HOHs that shop for larger families – in other words, shoppers most likely to be managing to a budget - make the fewest impulse buys.
What’s particularly interesting to me is that there appears to be an opportunity to customize (or at least test) messaging by “shopping style,” including whether a shopper considers herself “fast and efficient,” how a shopper obtains prices in advance of a store visit (e.g. newspaper vs. TV) and whether the person tends to shop during the week or on weekends.
All of this information is theoretically available to – or could be deduced by - grocers who run frequent shopper programs via card or fob; whether that information is actually captured in a usable form right now is another question entirely! impulse_shopping Wharton
Will Ferrell is appearing for the first time on Broadway in a new one-man show, You’re Welcome America. A Final Night with George W. Bush. The run kicks off on January 20 — Bush’s final day in office — and concludes March 15. Ferrell’s friend and collaborator, Adam McKay, is directing. McKay played Ferrell’s friend in the legendary FunnyorDie.com video, The Landlord. Remember the baby?? “You pay me nowwww!”
Ferrell is masterful as Bush. Here he is on the topic of global warming: “Apparently the sun’s rays are, uh, intensifying in a way that’s, uh, increasing lava flows and, uh… Liberals and godless taxraisers are tryin’ to make me look bad with facts and scientific data. When you think back 6,000 years ago to when the world was created, when Adam and Eve talked to that snake, it was hot then, too. Why do you think Adam and Eve were naked? And you didn’t hear Adam and Eve runnin’ around talkin’ about emission standards or hybrid cars… and I think the polar icecaps suck! Who cares about a place where penguins can have an orgy?”
But I’m curious: does everyone think Ferrell was funny, and will our political views impact the show’s ticket sales? Will Dems not go because they don’t want to see anyone even pretending to be George Bush? Or will Dems want to go for the release? Will Republicans not go because they’re not excited about someone mocking their President?
I can’t think of an analogous situation in the past. There’s the song “Springtime For Hitler” in Mel Brooks’ film/musical The Producers, but — aside from any other factors I’m probably not considering — The Producers was released in 1968, decades after the events that spawned the song.
In last year’s film, Sex and the City, Carrie and John (that’s Mr. Big to you) finally get hitched at City Hall in New York City. I need to take a look at that scene again, but I’m vaguely remembering the fake location looking a whole lot better than the real one.
You see, everyone in New York knows that it sounds awfully romantic to just run down to City Hall to get hitched. We’re in love! Just get your shots first, because the room beside the County Clerk’s office where you’re able to get married looks like Gitmo. I mean, it’s bad. Perhaps “Gitmo” is a wee exaggeration, but it’s awfully depressing and you really do not want to know the source of the (4 decades old?) stains on the carpet.
Enter Businessman Bloomberg. Our Mayor has just completed a new $12 million, 24,000 square foot space “designed to put some glamour into City Hall weddings.” The mayor had his own interior designer consult on the project.
The guy’s a d*mn genius. Do you frequent skeevy movie theatres, even if the movie is ok? No. Do you return to restaurants with uninviting ambiance but decent food? Unlikely.
New York City issued 70,000 marriage licenses in 2008, putting it behind the #1 most popular destination, Las Vegas. With tourism down and NYC & Co. creating all sorts of promotions, look for programs that will get couples into the new space down on Worth Street.
Yesterday, I wrote a post saying that perhaps the press shouldn’t rule out weight-loss companies just yet: that perhaps cost-effective programs will actually fit nicely with the trend toward dining at home.
Now comes news that recipe websites are doing great business. I always knew that someone out there was cooking… [Sidebar: I had dinner with a neighbor the other night. He brought over take-out. He asked me for a big pan and a set of tongs. I had neither. It wasn't pretty.] Allrecipes.com had 8 million unique visitors in October! That’s a lot of tongs.
What other types of business and websites might benefit from the nesting trend? I know that some of the recipe sites allow a user to print a shopping list containing all the ingredients required for a given recipe. What if a site also allowed you to customize that recipe? Say you wanted to make a chicken dish, and you could enter a budget and the number of adults and children you wanted to feed? Or what if a site had a partnership with grocery chains, so it could tell you that chicken is on sale at your local Kroger but not Publix?
There have to be a lot of ideas (or at least good experiments) here for grocers. At stores with floor space, what if a grocer partner clustered all the ingredients for a site’s “recipes of the week” in one frozen and one non-frozen spot on the floor? For the grocers who already offer delivery, what if you could call or contact a grocer online, specify the recipe and have the store know what ingredients you needed?
Grocers have been on my mind as the economy has continued to crater. In a walking city like New York, at least, a grocer probably sees a person more frequently than just about any other retailer. What is that grocer doing to fully leverage that visit? Frequent shopper discounts are good, but standard. Once you’ve got a customer in your store – 3 or 4 times a week – there has just got to be opportunity at a time when everyone is looking for ways to make things easier (and less expensive than eating out). recipe_websitesAllrecipes.com
There have been a couple articles recently on how weight loss companies might fair in a down economy. The subtle or not-so-subtle implication is that this may be a very crummy time for Weight Watchers, Atkins, Jenny Craig and the like.
I’m not so sure. Nearly all the best-known companies have new work out right now in an attempt to take advantage of what is usually the plumpest (sorry) time for new sign-ups: each year’s first quarter, right after those resolutions are made. And some of the pricing is quite good. Weight Watchers can cost next to nothing if a member has enough willpower, and some of the others that do rely on selling there own food are offering some great deals.
I was smugly pleased when I saw a snarky article today mentioning that NutriSystem had recently lowered its price for a monthly program from $400/mo (including food) to $300. The point was that $300 was still impractical. I guess that writer doesn’t channel surf enough: just this weekend I saw NutriSystem selling this same program on QVC – and with a lot of bonus food - for under $200/mo. Forbes.com just found that NutriSystem is the least expensive holistic weight loss program available.
Whether these companies do well in a down economy will in large part depend not only on consumer priorities but also on whether committed people use these programs as substitutes for more expensive behaviors, such as dining out. these programs for other, more expensive behaviors, such as dining out. Having every week’s breakfasts, lunches, snacks and dinners delivered to your home could actually fit nicely with the trends toward budgeting and entertaining/dining at home.
Let’s not count all these companies out just yet. It’s possible that some clever investment in 2009 may help superior competitors scoop up savvy, motivated consumers who not only see the opportunity to lose weight but whose current (expensive) habits make weight-loss programs look like a pretty good deal. NutriSystemweight_lossWeight_Watchers
“Cheap is cool.” Thus was MediaPost’s conclusion upon naming Wal-Mart retail marketer of the year. Like ‘em or not, I have to agree with the choice.
And anyone reading this blog regularly will probably guess my choice for worst marketer of the year (a caffeinated drumroll please)… Yes, Starbucks. A painful example of the fact that (a) brands that don’t change with the times get into trouble and (b) having your founder return in a Michael Dell-like manner does not always work.
But I digress.
The “cheap is cool” mantra will hold through 2009. It’s not that you can’t have fun, or a treat once in awhile, but in-bred ostentatiousness is so 2007 (and 2006 and 2005….). Consider how your product or service can reflect the changing times and mood – even if you only make a customer feel better about all the money he’s spending.
Case in point: slum tourism, the phenomenon of people spending a lot of money to visit the poorest slums of the world. Are they helping matters? Questionable. Do they have a more soulful story for their friends (formerly known as Lehman Brothers masters of the universe) when they come home than they did after last year’s trip to St. Bart? Absolutely.
Just kidding. I actually did do this once – and it was fun – but it was a more innocent time back then. Now the cops won’t even let you leave to pee. One must draw the line somewhere.
Motrin moms
Colloquy
WOMMA
Adrants
Virgin_America
Virgin_America_Adrants
Costco
peanut_butter_recall
Super_Bowl 
Super_Bowl_advertising 
ETrade 
ETrade_baby 
Starbucks 
Hands_On_Network 
philanthropy 
corporate_philanthropy 
ben_&_jerry’s 
nike 
Target_shopping 
Financial_Times 
social_media 
Eric_Yaverbaum 
Bubbletweet 
Whopper_Sacrifice 
Facebook 
If this blog and 
Twitter
impulse_shopping 
Wharton
Will_Ferrell_George_Bush 
Will_Ferrell_Broadway 
Mayor_Bloomberg 
Michael_Bloomberg 
New_York_City_Hall 
Yesterday, I wrote a 
recipe_websites
Allrecipes.com
NutriSystem
weight_loss
Weight_Watchers
