Yesterday I found an e-mail from Pinterest in my inbox with the subject line, "Introducing more useful pins," which was intriguing enough to get me to open it. The first line of the e-mail, "We're excited to introduce pins with more information!" which was intriguing enough to prevent me from immediately deleting it.

The new "pins with more information" were of interest because they were supposed to benefit both retailers and consumers so I read the e-mail, clicked the links and tried to figure out just exactly what was "new." The changes at first were invisible to me, and the vague explanations provided by Pinterest didn't help me find what was so "useful" and "exciting" or even what was different. When I dug a little deeper, though, what I found were changes that were barely perceptible, but not insignificant. The most pinteresting thing about the changes announced is how much better Pinterest is integrating monetization into its platform than the social giants Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have. That really is something "useful" and "exciting."

So here's the executive summary of what the new Pinterest changes are all about. When you see the icon of a company beneath a pin, it indicates that this is an "info-rich" pin (my terminology, not Pinterest's). When you click on an info-rich pin, you will see information such as pricing and availability for retail items, review scores for movies, and recipe ingredients for food. This information appears beneath the info-rich pin in a much nicer format than just the unformattable paragraph-less comment box that would have previously appeared.

Here's the catch that neither that neither the Pinterest e-mail nor corresponding Pinterest blog post tells you about these new info-rich pins. The icons and the pretty formatted info-rich details will be invisible to you unless you have already switched over to the "new look" version of Pinterest. If you were unaware that there was such a thing as a "new look" for Pinterest and you have no idea how to switch to it, click here for the explanation from the Pinterest team.

No worries, unaware pinners... The "new look" just became available this month, presumably to support and coincide with the introduction of the info-rich pins which just happened yesterday. So even if you've been pinning out of the loop, you aren't that far behind and you haven't really missed much.

Once you've switched to the "new look," and you start to view some of the new info-rich pins, you'll realize that it's much pin-ado about nothing from a consuming pinner perspective, because the changes are almost imperceptible. The info-rich pins don't look that much different, and they don't contain any information that it wasn't possible to attach to a Pinterest pin prior to the "improvement."

Before yesterday's changes, it was already possible for any pin to contain information like pricing and product details, and was already possible to link a Pinterest image directly to a retail website sales page as well. But the imperceptibility of the changes introduced with info-rich pins doesn't make them any less valuable to the retail stores and brands using Pinterest or any less significant for the evolution of Pinterest.

The technology behind info-rich pins is what's significant here because it makes things easier for retailing websites by removing some of the manual work previously required. Now key product information can be disseminated, changed, and updated by retail websites through a feed. Having access to technology that makes it easier for retailers to interface with Pinterest and easier for pinners to purchase is a significant improvement, especially for the for the largest retailers with the largest Pinterest audiences.

The huge significance for Pinterest as a company is found in the strategy that it's using to integrate monetization into its social media platform.

Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have had huge and sometimes insurmountable challenges with the monetization of their businesses primarily because their social media platforms were built completely divorced from commercialization and their communities grew in a sponsor-free paradigm. Introducing a commercially monetizing aspect to these social media platforms is as simple as introducing banners, sidebars, and links, but it's been sometimes impossible to get those monetizing banners, sidebars and links to pay off for the commercial sponsors. The commercial-free social media communities have simply rejected the social media sponsors by refusing to participate in a commercialized paradigm.

Pinterest, on the other hand, has been unobtrusively integrating retailing into its platform from the beginning. Granted, it seemingly was unintentional integration in the beginning, but as it became clear that Pinterest was going to join the world's largest social media platforms with membership and usage numbers, the moves towards monetization have been made thoughtfully and seamlessly. Each step towards monetization seems to keep both the retailers and the pinners in mind.

The elegance of the commercial integration can probably be credited to the fact that Pinterest is not publicly traded (yet) and has not allowed itself to abandon its original vision and intention. The philosophy of twenty-something founder Ben Silbermann still seems to be the vision that's guiding Pinterest as it evolves.

"It's exciting to see people using the product in ways that we never really expected. It's exciting that people care a lot," Silbermann said in a 2012 Inc. Magazine Interview. "And then you also feel this weight of responsibility, you sort of brought this little thing to the world, this little product, and you want to see it get better."

Seemingly this sense of responsibility to the cyber creation and the simple desire to make it better has allowed Pinterest to slowly introduce commercialization without a widespread community revolt or any dramatic community backlash. Retailers are embracing the visually uplifting intent of Pinterest, and pinners are accepting of retailers who are participating respectfully in the Pinterest space. So far, everyone is playing together in the social sandbox quite well.

As with any participation in social media, the question that's always on the table for the largest U.S. retail chains is whether social media activity is worth the effort. and the only way they really know how to measure that is with good old ROI. While it's getting technically easier to measure the ROI from social media platforms, the value of social media activities will never be completely measurable. Just like a billboard on the side of the highway or a commercial broadcast during the Super Bowl, you'll never really know exactly how your exposure on the Pinterest platform translates indirectly into sales.

There's a degree of blind faith in almost all retail industry marketing efforts which requires you to believe that when you show up in the most positive way possible in front of an appropriate audience, that it will pay off somehow at some time. And no matter how scientific we get with our marketing efforts, sometimes being in the right place at the right time with the right product at the right price is just a matter of dumb luck.

Pinterest, while an amazing success story with astronomical growth and seemingly unlimited potential, is still just three years old. It is still a social media toddler that hasn't been walking among the other social media giants for very long. So the best marketing strategy that retailers probably have at this point in Pinterest's evolution is to just to keep Pinning It against the boards to see what sticks.

Share This Story | Trending Retail Topics | Newest Articles & Updates | Free Retail Newsletter | E-mail Quote of the Day | Pinteresting Retail Pins | Follow on Twitter | "Like" on Facebook |

Surprising shopper surveys, mall repurposing, and global trends are just some of the things that more than 30,000 people have been talking about in Las Vegas this week. Reportedly the mall walking and talking is upbeat at the annual International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) RECon convention this year as slowed U.S. mall development and rising demand for U.S. mall space are two important factors in a U.S. mall landlord's formula for happiness.

Malls have been working hard to evolve with a rapidly-changing retail paradigm - not so much to stay on the leading edge as much as just to stay alive. "Dead malls" have moved from metaphor to reality at an alarming rate since the Great Recession, but mall occupancy rates, traffic numbers, and global mall trends have been trending positively lately.

In a recent report, global property firm CBRE estimated that there is 344 million square feet of retail space under development around the world in 2013. Even though the countries and cities with the biggest mall expansion in 2013 does not include any U.S. locations, most existing American malls are finding new footing, getting traction, and moving farther away from claiming their space in the mall graveyard.

An April, 2013 survey by Glimcher Realty Trust has concluded that despite the consensus that brick-and-mortar retailing is a thing of the past, only 20% of Americans shop exclusively online, only 14% of brick-and-mortar shoppers do "showrooming," and shoppers are still willing to travel up to 30 minutes to reach a mall where they will spend at between one to five hours at least once per month. This is good news for malls that have been feeling abandoned, unappreciated, and obsolete.

The Glimcher research is in line with the most recent Piper Jaffray "Taking Stock with Teens" market research study that revealed that 82% of teen spending is still done in brick-and-mortar stores. And a third survey also confirms that malls are not yet "so yesterday" with Gen Yers (age 18-35) either.

The "Generation Y: Shopping and Entertainment in the Digital Age" report says while 91% of Gen Yers have purchased something online in the past 6 months, more than 50% also have visited brick-and-mortar retail stores in the past month. The report also concludes that Gen Yers would spend more time in malls if there were more bargains, sensory experiences, and social interaction. Gen Yers value experiences over stuff, and would visit malls more often if they perceived there would be something new to do or see or talk about when they arrived.

The Gen Y survey seems to be the one that mall owners and managers are paying the most attention to because a big topic of discussion at the ICSC RECon convention is about mall repurposing, and the future vision for malls which is much larger than just retailing.

Increasingly, mall retail space is being repurposed for medical facilities, teaching facilities, fitness facilities, cultural facilities, and even churches. This is good for mall management because it fills space left empty by store closings and store rightsizing by the largest U.S. retail chains. Seemingly, higher mall occupancy would be as good for mall retailers as it is for shopping mall owners because functioning businesses draw more foot traffic than empty store fronts.

But traffic and sales are two very different things. A doctor's visit and a shopping trip aren't the same thing and aren't necessarily compatible. Are you in the mood to spend more money after you've just been handed a prescription to fill that your HMO won't cover? Are you going to grab a bite to eat after a trip to the dentist? Do people who are sick enough to be getting medical care feel like walking around a mall afterwards? Do we really want them to?

Mall repurposing creates a lot of unanswered questions for mall retailers. Do people who use free resources from mall-based libraries then walk into the mall to spend the money they've saved by borrowing books and DVDs? Will the students attending mall-based schools be doing more trying or buying before and after class? Will the fitness crowd be checking out new fashions and filling dressing rooms after their sweaty workouts at mall-based gyms? And again, do we really want them to?

While it would seem that good news for mall managers also means good news for mall retailers, this isn't necessarily the case in malls that are being re-engineered as experience and activity destinations. The gap between mall management and mall retailing is wider than it's ever been since the first fully enclosed, climate-controlled retail shopping space opened in Edina MN in 1958.

When shopping malls were completely retail-centric, it was clear that what helped the mall also helped the retailers in the mall and vice versa. But this correlation is no longer so clear. If good mall management these days is just about filling space and generating traffic using any kind of non-retail proprietor, event or activity as the mall magnet, then mall retailers are really left to fend for themselves inside a whole new mall marketing paradigm.

For one thing, in the reimagined, reengineered multi-purpose-mall-of-many-missions, retailers are pitted as direct competitors with essential life expenditures. Prying discretionary dollars out of the tightly closed wallet of consumers immediately after they paid for an essential service next door is a tough sell in a teetering economy.

It's also a completely different marketing challenge to lure mall shoppers through your front door than it is to capture the attention of people who came to the mall to be students, patients, researchers, and artists in order to first transform them into shoppers before you even have a chance to lure them into your store.

Certainly the percentage of retail tenants in most major malls is still high in comparison to non-retail tenants. So it still makes logical sense to mall managers that in helping their retailers they are helping themselves. But the more malls move away from being retail hubs and towards being experience destinations, the less invested mall managers are going to be in assisting retail success. Retailers probably don't have to worry about being completely neglected, but there will obviously be some split focus and reallocated budgets in future mall promotion efforts.

Reimagining, reengineering, redesigning, and repurposing is not a new concept for American retailing. Retailers like Best Buy (BBY), Build-a-Bear (BBW), and jcpenney (JCP) have been aggressively working to reinvent themselves in the past couple of years, and have experienced both success and failure in doing so.

The most radical retail repurposing plans were recently introduced by Sears (SHLD), which is reportedly planning on converting some of its retail mall spaces into data centers, server warehouses, and mobile phone antenna rental depots. Come See the Software Side of Sears? This seems to be one more example of the desperation of Sears Holdings. It is definitely a good example of a mall repurposing move that will benefit the bottom line of the mall, but will probably do nothing for the bottom line of the malls' retail tenants.

In general, we may slowly discover that non-retail visitors are to mall retailers as vegetarians are to steakhouses. Just because you parade them by, doesn't mean they'll ever want to consume. This is not to say that mall reinvention and repurposing is a bad thing because certainly empty, abandoned, and bankrupt malls are of no value to either retailers or shoppers. But it is to say that mall retailers need to add "new mall marketing strategies" to their long list of 21st century retail challenges.

It's not completely certain exactly how malls will be repurposing and reinventing themselves and if they will be able to do it quickly enough to stay relevant in the future, but one thing is for sure. As is the case with every part of today's retail equation, successful mall retailing is more complex than ever before.

This coming weekend more than 200 bloggers and retail representatives will be meeting face to face in Bentonville, Arkansas with the purpose of collaborating and creating "collective bias" for certain retail brands on the Internet. Collective Bias is actually the name of the organizers of the event. "Effective leveraging of the social space" is actually the term being used to describe the collusion between bloggers and brands that is expected to be the result.

At face value this seems to be a conference built on an ethical tightrope for both the bloggers and the retailers who will participate. While there are separate designated tracks and presentations for company representatives and bloggers, it is unlikely that the formal sessions are the attraction of the event. I doubt that retail marketing employees and bloggers who have the ability to influence consumer opinions are making the effort to visit the exciting metropolis of Bentonville for three days just because of the workshops. When these two contingencies share meals, hallways, hotels, bowling lanes and Happy Hour events for three days, there are sure to be some "relationships" (wink) forged.

The description of the Collective Bias "SoFabCon" doesn't list the relationships (wink) that will be created as one of the benefits of the event, but undoubtedly everybody knows why they're there. Making the connection between retailers who need some positive social press and bloggers who have the ability to generate it is what the Collective Bias business is all about.

The stated purpose of Collective Bias on its website is to "drive retail sales through the coordinated creation of social media stories." It's a worthy mission and there's nothing wrong with it. That is, unless the readers of these "coordinated social media stories" don't know that the blogger who wrote them was "influenced" to cover the topic and that they have a relationship (wink) with the companies that will profit from the positive press about the stuff they're writing about.

Kmart is one of the companies that has used the "coordinated social media stories" strategy, according to the Collective Bias website. Reportedly Kmart sponsored a blogging campaign for their Outdoor Living department products with 40 bloggers. In looking at the sample posts, it is clear that the bloggers were given clear instructions about what links to include in their articles and even some of the verbiage to use in their because several things are repeated by different bloggers in different posts.

Now, I'm sure that Kmart and Collective Bias will be quick to jump in and say that all of their bloggers are required to post the standard disclaimer... "I am a member of the Collective Bias™ Social Fabric® Community. This shop has been compensated as part of a social shopper insights study for Collective Bias™. #CBias #SocialFabric. All opinions are my own! " Legally, this seems to meet the minimum requirement for declaring a sponsorship relationship (wink). But the fact that this disclaimer is posted at the end of a long article, after several large photos, at least one video, and numerous links to the sponsors' website pretty much guarantees that it won't get read. Especially since it's often in 6 point type and barely understandable.

Really, does the average reader know that "compensated as part of a social shopper insights study" means the same thing as "one of 40 bloggers who received compensation from Kmart to write about their outdoor furniture and link back to their websites and social media accounts?" This is risky ethical business not because it's illegal, but because consumers often have a different opinion about right and wrong than courts and lawmakers do. Consumers don't like to be duped and they're not inclined to be forgiving after they find out they have been.

It's unfortunately not surprising that Kmart would engage in anything that could be considered risky social media business (and allow the Collective Bias website to proudly display it as a case study) given the desperate hail-mary marketing from Sears Holdings (SHLD) that has been using just to try and keep its business alive. Seemingly, though, this "leveraging of the social space" seems to be a great example of going after short-term gains at the expense of long-term relationships. This is probably the kind of managerial thinking that got the Sears and Kmart chains off track in the first place.

If long-term success is dependent on customer engagement and loyalty (and it is) and if customer engagement and loyalty are built on a foundation of trust (and it is), then the potential for collateral damage from these collusive blogging campaigns is huge. Not because anything is illegal, but because it's not as forthright as it could be.

Why isn't the legal sponsorship disclaimer posted at the beginning of the article so that the reader knows what's happening before they read the article? I can only imagine it's because consumers don't respond the same way to advertisements as they do to unbiased content. But the fact of the matter is that few if any of the 40 bloggers on the Kmart campaign had ever blogged about Kmart outdoor furniture before they were compensated to. So even the consideration of the topic was purchased, which makes the content biased. Consumers deserve to be informed about the bias up front, in my opinion.

Sears and Kmart are unlikely to win themselves a spot on the "Most Ethical Retail Companies" list with these kind of marketing smokescreens. And they're unlikely to rebuild their base of genuine loyal brand advocates with semi-deceptive strategies and purchased mouthpieces. You might be able to mislead people through your doors, but in the age of transparency, you can't believe you won't ever be called out for it.

This is not to imply that anybody is doing anything "wrong" or that Collective Bias is the only company that is in the business of connecting bloggers with sponsors. Blissdom is another company based in Canada that will be sponsoring a similar conference in October. Along with workshops, the Blissdom conference will include at least one Sponsor "Meet and Treat" event and classic trade show booth exhibits presumably manned by company representatives who want bloggers to talk positively about them.

It sounds like a walking talking full weekend swag bag. Not that there's anything wrong with that either for the participating bloggers or the sponsors like Chevrolet (GM), Microsoft (MSFT), Starbucks (SBUX), Indigo, and Sleep Country who will be courting their affections. They're just "taking a meeting."

I'm not sure what the laws in Canada are regarding sponsorship transparency, but if readers are unaware that their favorite blogger's affections are for sale, it's less an issue of legalities as it is an issue of trust. It seems like both bloggers and retailers would want to factor in the value of customer trust before doing anything that jeopardizes it because genuine trust is one thing that will never have a price tag.

More About Business Blogging and Social Media:

• Most Popular Retail Blog Posts and Topics
• Understanding Business Blogging Jargon and Terminology
• Business Blogging Is More Than Babble - Building Social Media Equity With Customers

Share This Story | Trending Retail Topics | Newest Articles & Updates | Free Retail Newsletter | E-mail Quote of the Day | Pinteresting Retail Pins | Follow on Twitter | "Like" on Facebook |

March retail sales in the U.S. retail industry were disappointing, and that disappointment is likely to extend to April when same store sales are reported next week. The New York Times attributes the recent retail sales slowdown to increased payroll taxes. The U.S. Bureau of Census points a fiscal finger at the government's spending sequester. Redbook Research blames it on the Boston Bombings.

No doubt the U.S. retail chains that report disappointing same store sales next week will cite one or all three of these external forces that were beyond their control to explain their performance.

It's convenient to report and even more convenient to believe that any or all retail sales disappointments can be blamed on external forces. But what if the truth of the matter is that retail sales are down because in-store retail employees and managers just didn't do a good enough job in April?

It is inevitable that when... read more >>

Share This Story | Trending Retail Topics | Newest Articles & Updates | Free Retail Newsletter | E-mail Quote of the Day | Pinteresting Retail Pins | Follow on Twitter | "Like" on Facebook |