LinkedIn Twitter
CMO at Aimia, Advisor atBeringer Capital. Previously SVP Global Digital Marketing at SAP, Founder and CEO of Social Media Group. Maggie has been interviewed about social and digital trends by Inc. magazine, The Washington Post, CBC Radio, The Globe and Mail, CBC News, CTV News and The Financial Post, among others.

4 responses to “Publicly Traded Companies + Empire Avenue = Very. Bad. Idea.”

  1. Tracy Delphia

    No, I don’t think it’s a mountain out of a molehill at all. Perception *is* reality and this is playing with fire. I wonder why EA is not monitoring their sandbox.

    I do find myself thinking of the 1983 movie “WarGames.”

  2. Rob Nielsen

    Maggie —

    Thanks much for your post . . . raises an excellent point and question. In reality, Empire Avenue has little to do with the stock market function, and so much more to do with, as they say, investment of social capital — uber-networking at a fun, frenetic pace . . . I say that as someone who picks stocks half the day, everyday . . . that’s just my way of adding value, along with consistent participation in the facebook groups that are making new career opportunities possible.

    For a brand, I think they first need to understand the social implIcations of being on EAv; BMW was a fantastic example. Rocketed from the start, but mismanaged their EAv activity, and have since flatlined around 100e for 2 weeks . . . which, with 5 million page fans, is not as strong as it could be with some portfolio guidance, as well as education on how to properly employ EAv as a brand.

    Because it is still a smaller, more intimate environment, there is plenty of flexibility ( I think ) as to how brands could be represented on EAv . . . perhaps not like a common stock, per se. At present, too, the Indexes hold little weight, and the business / brand side should be as separate as profiles and pages on FB.

    I see your point about shareholder confusion, and the ridiculous need to address holders of (for now) worthless shares. I think there should be an opportunity to eventually turn eaves into rewards / discounts on various products and services to create a customer loyalty continuum across all of their marketing platforms — the more a shareholder/customer engages with that brand’s facebook page, for example, the more a share price will rise, which benefits the EAvers. Same holds true for Twitter, YouTube . . . because Empire Avenue is a driver of social networks, it also serves as a social media education tool — to increase your price, you must increase/maintain a high level of interaction in all networks — and the more time you spend ( and engage ) with a brand, the greater the loyalty.

    Rob Nielsen (e)HOST

  3. Tim Conrad

    You may have a point, however, I think that as someone who runs a social media company, you would understand that most people do not own shares in a publicly traded company. Only the wealthy or wannabe wealthy can afford to participate in the market. On the other hand, social media, home to customers for these publicly traded companies, can now find themselves with ownership in the company. Fake you say? They now have influence, ownership, and the ability to be involved in decisions. I’m shocked to read your perspective on this, especially considering one of your clients (Ford) has joined the EAV community in a big way. Your perspective baffles me, to be honest! You might want to do some more research on – eeeek – social media’s place in today’s world.

  4. maggiefox | Social Media Group

    Hey Tim, thanks for the comment! I’d like to make a few points of clarification:

    1. Being the CEO of a social media company does not qualify me to make statements on what percentage of the population own real stocks (and that’s not really the point)

    2. While Ford was a client for many years, we have not advised them in over 18 months

    3. Your rationale for why Empire Avenue is a good place for companies to be is *exactly* why I think it’s a terrible idea. Most companies have enough on their plates dealing with real shareholders and media, adding the complexity of a “virtual” (since “pretend” seems to offend) share price/shareholders/marketplace/media mix is absolute insanity and of dubious value.

    And rather than an admonishment about “social media’s place in the world”, some schooling on reality is in order here.