Posts Tagged ‘Social Media’

April 24th, 2009

Marketing strategy is in the bottle

smoothie_bottles_three_med1

I recently heard Richard Reed, one of the founders of Innocent Drinks remark that “ninety percent of their marketing strategy is in the bottle”. It does remind me that excellent products and services will often sell without the aid of any advertising or other paid for promotion at all. Google, Microsoft, Body Shop, Innocent and Yahoo! to name but a few built their brands without reliance on traditional advertising. Google went one step further and targeted its initial product diffusion across the academic sector knowing that it would be promoted by academics to students and so into the wider educated community. All all cases, these brands relied on a superior product experience to drive word of mouth promotion.

Some might say, well, they’re the lucky products, but for the rest of us, we have to fight to maintain our position in the market. They’d argue it’s not that their products are bad, it’s just that they have to complete with many similar products in the same market space.

But this is where we get into what Web 2.0 really means for marketers.  In the web enabled world everyone can review a product on either online retailer sites or on third party sites that encourage user review content. These sites are the territory where brands reputation will be built and lost.  In the world of Web 2.0 and beyond, the product takes centre stage. Promotion will no longer be provided by third party marketing communications alone, but through the distribution of user advocacy based on user experience.

The logical extension of this, and certainly my hope, is that renewed focus on product development will in turn drive the emergence of new and more effective products and services which benefit all whilst, in a Darwinian sense, weaker products and services are gradually marginalised out of consumer markets.

March 31st, 2009

Trevor Beattie brings PR into BMB

Trevor Beattie’s BMB agency has announced the launch of an in-house PR function and in the process one of the founders, Andrew McGuinness broadened his definition of what BMB does from advertising to ‘publicity’. As moves by one of the UK’s strongest creative agencies, these developments are worthy of reflection. I see two points of interest:

First, BMB’s move into PR could indicate the arrival a new agency philosophy. The Internet has created a new mechanism for consumers to better inform their purchasing decisions. Opinion on any product or service is now just a click away. There’s been a democratisation of product information. Communities of consumers can exchange notes on any brand. Non-users can easily access these online opinions to inform their own decision making.  The formation of brand attitudes is no longer closed and personal, it’s open and communal. As a result, almost anything that costs more than about £20 is now habitually researched on the Internet before being bought. It follows that any agency in the business of helping companies sell products or services needs to understand and respond to this information rich buying model. By putting PR at the heart of their ‘publicity’ offering, BMB are recognising that brand information can be as important as brand imagery.

saatchi-and-saatchi-entrance2

Second, ‘publicity’ is a great definition of marketing communications. After the 90’s shopping sprees to buy direct marketing, research and experiential agencies new terms for our industry were emerging left, right and centre.  The buzz words became ‘360 degree integration’, ‘total communications’ and ‘media neutrality’.  Saatchi and Saatchi’s Charlotte Street entrance signage tracked these changes nicely; the agency used to be called “Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising” proudly announcing that it was in the business of making ads and nothing else. Then I noticed the sign over 80 Charlotte Street was reading “Saatchi and Saatchi Communications” as the agency aimed to get into a wider basket of additional marketing services.  Now, perhaps on the basis that less is more, the sign reads simply “Saatchi and Saatchi”, with the agency preferring to define itself by nothing more than its name.

At the end of the day we are trying to make something more famous and better thought of than it was yesterday.  But we don’t seem to like simple definitions. For me, the word ‘publicity’ is unashamedly simple and so very strong. It’s also the term used by two of the greatest brand managers the world has ever seen; Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham.

March 10th, 2009

A small step for Channel Four and a giant leap for TV?

So, Channel Four is to monetize its content on YouTube and Bebo by running pre-roll ads on their programme clips. This is interesting stuff. In a month when UK broadcasters have had to stomach some big doses of bad news, here is some light at the end of the tunnel. There’s a mutual raison d’etre here. Social media giants like YouTube have to find ways of monetising their content before investors start to lose patience and broadcasters like Channel Four need to find ways of monetizing their content before they fall even deeper into financial trouble.

The digital age is an age of partnerships where one time enemies can, and sometimes must, become friends. To succeed companies need to see old competitors as new companions. Rather than scrapping over content ownership and rights (another social media story today), it looks like Channel Four and YouTube are trying to make it work in the brave new world. Of course, this move won’t solve all Channel Four’s strategic and financial problems but it is the kind of creative thinking that’s going to be required to get broadcasters and social media platforms through these troubled times

On a separate but not unrelated point, it’s interesting to note that today ITV has announced it is parting company with its head of online revenue. Sometimes what these guys do behind the scenes is as interesting as the programmes they transmit.

February 17th, 2009

Should twitter charge?

Twitter is talk of the town in UK marketing circles this week. But the discussion isn’t about the fun of using twitter or the reasons why people do or don’t use it, or when they use it, or how often or who with. No, it’s about whether or not twitter should charge brands for using its services.

You can’t blame twitter for trying,  they have bills to pay just like the rest of us - and like the rest of social media.  Despite their incredible growth, social media brands are caught in digital Catch-22;   they can get right into the highly prized personal space of individual consumers. But unfortunately, these high levels of personal involvement come at a price;  when consumers are facebook-ing, twitter-ing, myspace-ing or bebo-ing,  they are so highly involved in generating their own content that they are not very interested in advertise-ing. The display model is virtually impossible to crack in these environments - especially on a click/sales performance basis.

So if the social media channels can’t make display pay what other areas of potential revenue can they look at? There are two obvious alternatives. Data and subscriptions.

Some big and successful businesses have been built selling customer data and using data to generate customer sales leads. Social media sites can gather all sorts of data but there’s a hitch here.   Both formal privacy regulations and “online morals” (e.g. Facebook’s Beacon rebellion) make monetizing social media member data a difficult area.

The other route is subscription revenue, but asking for a subscription fee risks losing members and slowing growth. That’s a risk social media can’t take. I’d bet that every venture capital presentation they make starts with a great looking exponential growth chart because, for the time being at least,  growth is keeping the financiers happy.

So without revenue from traditional display, data sales or subscription revenues, how can social media companies make a living?  Brands I’m afraid are an obvious target for two reasons. First, they’ve got money and second, charging brands does not affect the growth of the user base.

All the pioneers of social media have got to do now is find a way of creating a trade between their social assets (us) and brands’ desire for close engagement. Social media stakeholders are going to be very focussed on answering this question because if they can’t, some aspects of social media will quickly move from being the talk of the town to being a thing of the past.

December 3rd, 2008

Can marketing use social media networks for advertising?

,So the mighty P&G has spoken about social media. When these companies speak the marketing community has to listen. These guys think long and hard about the issues to cut straight through the hype. I know because I did it for Unilever. I worked directly with Unilever digital teams to help them understand the real value of digital media to their business. So, what was the basic message emanating from P&G? Well it’s that social media is not “media” and there’s no point in advertising around “someone breaking up with their girlfriend”.

I disagree slightly with the first part of this criticism. Social media is a form of media because it is space which carries content and delivers an audience that can be traded for money. From an advertising perspective these are the core characteristics of a “medium”. The big question comes when we try to explore what type of medium social media actually is.

In reality social media is not social media, it’s personal media. Social media is really comprised of groups of individuals sharing their personal communications. These social media communications are online versions of personal phone calls, text messages or letters. And whilst in some cases individuals may be prepared to publish these communications, it doesn’t follow that advertising placed in them will be effective. Such advertising is the equivalent of a radio ad in a phone call.

Advertising media planning is no longer about reach (and sites like Facebook certainly deliver reach). Twenty-first century media planning is about going deeper than reach, it’s about delivering mindsets, engagement and involvement. And it’s a fact that whilst an individual is deeply involved in a personal communication, like dumping their girlfriend, they are unlikely to engage with advertising in or around that communication. This notion was encapsulated by David Ogilvy who once observed that you’re more likely to get the best direct response from an ad placed in the afternoon movie repeat than in the latest episode of Dallas (The big hit drama of the day). In other words, advertising can’t win when competing with high value content.

A few months ago on I wrote “Advertising on social networks is a Web 1.0 technique in a Web 2.0 world. It may be the case that carrying ads is not a sustainable route for these networks or for advertisers.” I think this remains the case. It’s a problem for the likes of Facebook though, because if they cannot monetize their inventory their value will fall. So how might sites like Facebook monetize their inventory? I think their answer is to monetize the relationships they have with their users. But this isn’t an ad model. It’s something more akin to Seth Godin’s permission marketing and value exchange. Facebook has a brand franchise. It needs to provide added value to its users by teaming up with partners and offering deals to its users. Social media should be an enabler which allows companies and individuals to exchange value.

March 31st, 2008

BA should create a Terminal 5 community

I read today that Sir Tim Bell has suggested that BA or BAA close Terminal 5 for a couple of weeks in order to prevent the piling of this week’s new woes on top of those from last week.

In my view, BA or BAA should go one step further and use digital media to create a community area which can be used to restore relations with travellers. My suggestion would be a database-driven solution which links up with booking details and allows travellers to register their experience on a multiple choice questionnaire. Answers could be matched to ticket type and traveller type and “bespoke” compensation offers made. Customers could be segmented by:

1. Ticket type
2. Ticket value
3. Customer value (if known) or stated frequency of flights in last year
4. Amount of baggage lost (items or weight)
5. Type of contents (Holiday, business etc)
6. Time without baggage
7. Whether departure was prevented or trip cut short

Why bother with all this you may ask. Well the digital age means that disgruntled travellers can form themselves into communities and create havoc with brands. As in all marketing, and particularly service marketing, a failure presents an opportunity to either a) lose a customer and make a “brand enemy” or b) create a life-long brand advocate.

In short, failures give marketers and their companies an opportunity to shine and show just how much they really love their customers. BA/BAA should get to it now, before the sentiment of many travellers swings irreparably against them.