Involvement thresholds

2651474582_f721eb2cb2

I love all the following words…participation, interaction, experiences and even engagement. They’re more helpful and they must be good because you hear them at every conference, in every blog post and tweet, but what you don’t hear that often is the context or the practical implementation.

For every great case study held up as a shining example there is probably 100 hundred that have failed. I’m not bagging the terminology we just don’t spend enough time talking about the different kinds of participation, interaction, experiences and engagement.Hence many more failures than necessary.

For example my view is that Insurance can’t emulate a movie release because people aren’t generally a) as interested and b) as willing to give up as much time and effort. That’s not to say that they both can’t be involving, they just are in different ways.

Take Comparethemeerkat.com and Why So Serious, the former is almost sit back, snackable piece of light hearted entertainment, the latter is time consuming and truly participatory. In my opinion these have been successful because they understand what people might be willing to do in the context of its brand. Like pain, different people have different thresholds when it comes to brands and their communications. Its unlikely Mastercard would be tattooed on someone’s back, although some freak probably has having said that.

It’s also worth noting that these brands have also spent some money promoting themselves in mass media as well as through social. Not everything captures the media attention like the Best Job in World.

I know it seems obvious but it feels like brands make the following mistakes;

- They believe that everything has the same levels of social capital
- That people want to be your closest friend without it being earned
- That the majority of people want to give up time and energy to promote your product
- You don’t have to spend time or money on mass media communications, it will spread organically through networks

Definitely more swirling around in my tiny heed on this but it’s a start

Henry Jenkins on Transmedia and convergence culture

[Vimeo http://vimeo.com/4672634]

I particularly like his quote about George Orwell not getting it right in 1984. It’s more accurate to suggest that we are in fact watching Big Brother these days, rather than the other way round. A nice little articulation.

FYI I don’t think he is talking about the reality TV show either.

HT to Maschmeyer

Think like a Sociologist not a marketeer?

04.0820.cartoon_large

I like to think of myself as a bit of an amateur sociologist because a) it’s the most interesting part of my job, but b) its actually the most helpful way of thinking about and approaching marketing. Particularly with all this new social media stuff pissing on everyone’s fireworks.

So the point of this post and inspired by Everyday Sociologist, is about not thinking like a marketer, or even a social media expert for that matter, but a sociologist. Here’s their 5 steps for thinking like a sociologist

1# never assume anything
Easier said than done I know, but it’s arguably one of our worst traits. Assumptions about media, assumptions about our audience and assumptions about how our audience uses media are the main culprits. Oh and assuming people actually care about your thingummyjig that does doodah.

2# Get ready to be wrong
Nobody likes being wrong, but it’s often a good thing. It means someone has potentially seen something you haven’t and dare I say it, perhaps an innovation? Obviously challenge people and don’t always take an opposing hypothesis on face value, but don’t be afraid to accept that there might be a better way.

3# Ask even more questions
It’s not good enough having a nice pithy way of describing a target audience or an excel spreadsheet telling you how many times you are *potentially* going to bash someone over the head. Roll up your sleeves and ask the questions that tell you what your audience are really doing and thinking. Whlist you might not like the answer, it makes life more interesting trying to understand the why as well as the who and where.

4# Make the everyday strange
Who likes stuff these days that isn’t strange or different? What happens if I create a TV ad that will have more success on the web? What happens if I create a website that is more like a TV channel? What happens if I create a banner ad that’s a booking engine? What happens if I create a campaign that is really an involving story? All of these have been done of course, but don’t let other people be the first to do something that seems strange. Today’s strange is tomorrows normal.

5# Embrace life’s complexities
Oscar Wilde once said: “Life is not complex, we are complex. Life is simple and the simple thing is the right thing”. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for simplicity, but only up to a point. After all he did say this in 18 something and something and he also said: “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative”.

We understand a lot more about people these days, how they behave, how irrational they can be and more importantly the context of various media and how they are intertwined with each other and networks of people. Technology enables us to collect vast amounts of data and see things that we would never have seen before. Yes it can be difficult to get your head around but it’s not an excuse to say something is too difficult and opt for the ‘let’s just keep things simple’ or the ‘big eyeball buy’ routes.

Always read the (marketing label)

3313360185_18faf5f1d9_m
We all know the human brain (particularly those of marketers) work in mysterious ways, but I’m starting to wonder if we have gone just a wee bit too far. We can apparently choose from about 170,000 words according to the Oxford English Dictionary. However we have successfully managed to shorten our vocabulary so it fits on a single sheet of A4 paper using Rockwell font, size 36.

If I had a dollar for every word that we marketers use these days, I’d be piss poor quite frankly. I’m not sure why we have slowly reached this horrifying state of affairs. But we need to start articulating exactly what needs to be done.

Since reading this article and sitting in meetings it’s scary how accurate these observations are;

1 # Labels create a binary wor(l)d view. A case of either / or. After all, you must believe in something – and of course everything is definable.

E.g
New media vs traditional media
Brand vs Direct Response
Push vs Pull

2 # Social language has become a very powerful form of propaganda. It is social engineering unveiled very clearly, sitting in broad daylight – yet few actually even notice it.

E.g
Viral
Social media

3 # Labels appeal to the Ego, because of its desire to stand out and “Be Different”, the Ego needs to believe “It’s the Real Thing”.

E.g
Social media consultant

4 # Catch-phrases that allow people to run on auto-pilot 24/7.

E.g The majority of us who work in marketing

The human and semi human marketing mind does indeed move in mysterious ways. My advice, always read the label.

If (INSERT JOB DESCRIPTION) created a brand?

I’m always fascinated with the sheer diversity of opinion when it comes to defining a brand. There’s not an off the shelf approach any more that’s for sure. I’m also curious about whether people with experience are in deed the best people to do this job all the time?

Here’s an interesting post via Ed Cotton that refers to an architect by the name of Frank Gehry designing a new shoe for JM Weston.

I’m a massive fan of transformation design and anything that looks at an old problem through different lenses. Just a a thought experiment what would happen if say a a shoemaker created a new social network? I know, Shoe People. Sorry that gag is for my UK viewers.

Influence versus popularity

29327874_ac5308eafb
Image via

In the last few months Twitter has undoubtedly reached a critical mass where it’s actually interesting to follow people for even the most vocal cynic. And whilst there isn’t much of a business model yet, it’s certainly proved that it’s going to be around for a while. Obama effectively used it in the election and more recently the tragic events in Mumbai showed that it’s an insightful source and a rapid distributer of news. So this post isn’t proclaiming the death or hate for any kind of social tool but more about my growing concerns with how they are used and more importantly how influence is defined and measured,.

One of the big things that I find frustrating is the misunderstanding of influence versus popularity. So after some Googlelizing I came across this great post from Shel Israel that pretty much sums up the dark side of social media and highlights why numerical metrics really only measure popularity as opposed to influence which is somewhat of an anomaly at the moment. Here’s an exerpt…

“Suppose I were a political blogger and I had an audience of just three followers. Those followers were very engaged because they read everything I posted. They commented often. They took what I said and quoted me to other people in other conversations. But there were only three of them. Therefore I would be ranked lower than chopped liver in all the ranking systems. The catch is that those three readers were the President of the US, and the heads of China and Russia”

Don’t get me wrong there’s a valid element of communicating with friends and peers but there seems to be a growing number of ‘influencers’ and ‘social media consultants’ who have found an art of saying something without saying anything at all. I often find myself falling into the social media popularity trap. However reality takes hold and I have to ask myself am I really contributing anything to the conversation or merely smoring (social media whoring) my sorry ass! Sorry, negative post over.

Can digital people develop better brands?

I started in what you would call a traditional agency, so I like to think that I have a balanced opinion on this subject. But I have started to find myself getting increasingly angry of late and it’s related to the fallacy that digital people don’t get brands. Or roughly translated as…old school ad agency types are freaking out that we have some extremely valuable input on the subject and we are encroaching on their territory.

I personally work in digital because brands have to be more authentic and people focused than probably any other discipline and I love this quote by Mark Zuckerberg which pretty much sums up why digital people are in some respects of more value to brands at this present moment.

“A lot of this is just social norms catching up with what technology is capable of”

We are the people that see these developments clearer and faster than probably any other people, and the ‘socialness’ of the web means that if your brand works in this space it will work anywhere, where as the reverse is very rarely true. So I have created this particular slide to start off some of those discussions. Use it if you think it’s good. If you think it’s poo or unhelpful then let me know why.

expedia-digital-strategy

Image via. Zuckerberg qoute via. Gartner research via

The evolution of ideas

510009189_2d5b737953

Image via
My friends over at Stellar have recently started a PR related blog. You should go over and have a chat with them they’re very nice people. One of their first posts raises a nice bit of bloggingness debatery to address on a Friday. The subject? The originality of an idea and how there is a fine line between totally ripping one off, giving people credit and using it as source of inspiration for something better.

It’s really not cool to reap big rewards and praise for directly stealing something as highlighted by Julian. Arguably some of the most iconic ads of the last few years have been accused of copying. For example Honda’s Cogs were accused of copying 2 swiss artists, Peter Fischli and David Weiss, Sony’s playdoh rabbits spot was accused of copying Koyzndan as was their bouncing balls ad. This time it was David Letterman’s Late Show. Search the web, they do all look similar.

However, flip this on its head and how many artists draw their influence from brands and consumerism. Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst and even Banksy to name but a few. All have made a lot of money from brands. Both industries use each other as a source of inspiration and create a kind of cross culture as a result. Then there’s the introduction of digital and things get even more complicated. Faris explains it much better than I as recombinant culture.

I think as long as you can look yourself in the mirror and say you honestly created something that’s better or more interesting than the inspiration it came from, you will be OK. After all, I’m sure Fischili, Weiss, Letterman and Koyzndan all got inspiration from somewhere else if you dig hard enough. It’s a timely post after recently reading this article by Mark Earls on how brands spread through copying.

However with regards to giving credit where it’s due absolutely, and it’s probably a whole other discussion. Maybe that’s where Youtube could start making some money? After all they are getting sued for using licensed content, why can’t they license the content on behalf of their users?

Planning quote – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

“Knowledge is bad for us. Give a bookie 10 pieces of information about a race and he’ll pick his horses. Give him 50 and his picks will be no better, but he will, fatally, be more confident”

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Author of The Black Swan

Happiness as a campaign metric?

happy
Image via

This is arguably one of the hardest metrics you could possibly sell to a client, mostly because it sounds so warm and fuzzy. But once you get over this minor factor it has a significant reflection of how people’s values are changing.

A recent Contagious article refers to the next virus to take hold of society after the Internet as the ‘awakening of the consumer’. Here’s an extract…

“Awakening Consumers are waking up to the fact that we are all living on this little rock suspended in space. That our natural resources are finite, and our system of production and consumption, as it stands, is not sustainable.

Awakening is a process, and no one gets it right all the time, It is like when you are brushing your teeth and let the water run, then looking at the mirror you say, I am letting the water run. And once you start, you can’t stop. The process itself is contagious. Just how contagious? Next time you go shopping, see if you find yourself thinking about the values of one brand over another. If so, welcome, you’re a carrier.”

Now I like this as a sentiment but I think it is in some ways a lot simpler than that. I don’t believe it’s just about consumers being more socially responsible and aware of how their behaviour affects the bigger picture. Whether it’s the general day to day stress of life or the financial crisis people increasingly value happiness over wealth and materialism.

And just to highlight this point Adrian White, analytical social scientist at England’s University of Leicester has created the world’s first ‘happiness map’ creating a list of the happiest countries.

“White’s study, to be published later this year, was developed in part as a response to the British media’s fascination with life satisfaction. A recent BBC survey concluded that 81% of Britain’s population would rather the government make them happier than richer. Despite its often bleak weather, England ranked relatively happy at 41. White says: “There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator along with measures of wealth”.
You can read the full article here.

So if the British Government can do it in dreary old England why can’t brands? I would guess it’s because if many were honest with themselves they wouldn’t get very good results.

Twitter

My del.icio.us

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,081 other followers