What’s a fan worth? Easy: $10. Read on for details.

Though the word “ironman” is often used to indicate a particular race distance – 140.6 miles of swimming, biking, and running – or as a metaphor for a physically daunting effort it is, in fact, a trademarked term. A brand. These generic uses show that, on a smaller playing field, it is as dominant as Google and Coke. As such, the events and products stamped with its mark command a premium. Their events sell out, often in minutes, a year in advance.

The corporation that owns Ironman, WTC, recently announced an “Access” program that would allow 1,000 to register early for races. For $1,000. Race entry itself is around $600 and is not included in the Access fee. Access is merely a privilege; a purchased pass to the front of the line. A recent New York Times article – Triathletes, 40-Somethings, Going for Youth – estimated that the average triathlete spends $22,000 per year on the sport. The triathlon community is an affluent one … but not a stupid one. The uproar was loud, instantaneous; the program was so misguided that it demonstrated a fundamental disconnect from their customer base.

Their Facebook page was deluged with critical commentary, 330 comments to the original announcement alone.  Their logo, which many people proudly tattoo on their bodies after finishing races, was lampooned:

And their CEO issued a public apology along with a retraction of the sold out program.

So, what’s a fan worth? Their 90,000 “fans” were worth approximately $10 each: $1,000,000 in Access program fees were refunded.

One interesting twist is that the story didn’t die with retraction and apology; few consumers bought their stated motivation for the program. WTC claimed the program was intended to help athletes: they could get into the races they wanted and not register for multiple; since people weren’t registering for multiple races, there would be more space available in previously sold out races. The problems regarding race entry are real and resonate with consumers; their connection to Access rung false. Setting aside the class system problem – many options for the bourgeois, none for the proles – there are simpler solutions, such as offering refunds and reselling the spots, that look a lot less like greed and a lot more consumer centered. The fanbase is now attacking them over a disingenuous explanation. Snowball effect or avalanche?

Again, WTC is called to task for being tone deaf.

So why should we care? What does Ironman have to do with our marketing efforts, let alone search? Monitoring conversations at any point in the process would have put them in touch with consumer sentiment: it’s easy to find old tweets complaining about the expense of Ironman (see below) or after the retraction showing that nobody bought his rationale.

WTC was in touch enough to identify the problem but too self-absorbed to put forth a customer centered solution. Search and the direct connection it provides to the customer push us to constantly become more externally oriented: what are our customers looking for, what experiences can we provide that will increase their loyalty? Furthermore, search as a tool for generating insights, particularly in the form of a social media monitoring program, provides large scale de facto focus groups. Our customers tell us, in droves, every day what they desire, what they think about our products and services, how we can better meet their needs. Social media aggregates the power of individual voices: we can embrace this and all the new opportunities it provides us as marketers; we can gnash our teeth and rail against it, waxing nostalgic about the good old days when we could broadcast our message, take it or leave it; but we can’t turn a deaf ear or blind eye.

Hopefully WTC got the lesson: ignore customer conversation at your peril.

Or: how to please nearly 500 million people.

Here’s an interesting presentation by Henry Blodget, called The Moral of Facebook’s Success.  It contributes to the debate over Facebook’s growth path, taking on the naysayers who criticize Facebook for poor execution of new features or for meddling with user’s privacy. Some themes to like:

Beware the “squeaky wheel” phenomenon.  Put criticism and failure in context: you can’t let the fear of failure or criticism paralyze you.  In fact, you may have to embrace that every decision will fail to satisfy some and aggravate others – but in the end, are you improving the value for the other 490 million?  Don’t ignore the cases of the outliers, but don’t let them put you on a leash.

Embrace what’s different.  This resonated with one of the comments made by The Trusted Advisor (a recommended read for everyone) about listening: we tend to listen for what’s familiar when we should listen for what’s different. “Me too” solutions build off what’s similar; looking for a “me too” solution will guarantee you second place (first loser!) at best. When we offer to put a square peg in a round hole – or let others convince us to do so – we’re doing everyone (us, clients, consumers) a disservice.

Own your mistakes. Blodget doesn’t make this statement, but there is something in Zuckerberg’s comments on each failure that keeps him out of the “he is satan” camp: he acknowledges the mistake and recommits to keep innovating, but doing it better.  The trust this generates amongst users will vary, but we don’t see them repeating the same mistakes or neglecting Facebook users entirely.

And the quick quiz questions at the end are both “cute” and right on.

Google started showing links to brand results for generic queries. Check the results for jeans for an example –  new “Brands” links drive to results for Apple Bottom, Se7en, etc. Arguably this will make shopping easier; it might also encourage more competition on brand keywords — a controversial source of Google revenue.

We asked 100 search marketers whether this development is good or bad for search. A solid majority went with “Good for Search.” After the chart, commentary on the poll from Razorfish’s Ryan Whitehead.

“As a user, I like it. It acknowledges the fact that people do multiple searches, shop around, compare brands: all points we make with our clients on a regular basis, but complications for direct measurement of return. Knowing Google, users must be interacting with these links or they wouldn’t stick around. It demands a lot of questions though:

• This is a benefit for users who don’t click ads in generic-query results. In the past, we could argue that being present on generics was critical for awareness or to stay top-of-mind, but now some clients are going to have presence there regardless. What will that mean?
• How will users respond to these links, behaviorally and psychologically? How many click; how many are motivated to do an additional search? Do the new links seem more or less credible than sponsored results? More like organic results? I’d be interested to see an eye-tracker study.
• Will this leach clicks away from organic? It pushes organic results just a little bit further down the page.
• What’s the impact on brand traffic for our search campaigns? Will searches triggered by clicks lead to similar purchase behavior as a normal query? We don’t see equivalent performance from that type of traffic on MSN.
• If your brand isn’t showing up, how do you “optimize” so it will? Do we know how Google is deciding which brands show up and how they’re ranking them?

I think this is less about likes/dislikes. If it’s good for consumers, we should embrace it, approach it as an opportunity. The online experience will always be fluid. As much as our clients need us to be answer providers, they also need us to be investigators, breaking down new features or partnerships into brand- and consumer-relevant benefits. Now I’ll get off my soapbox!”