Author: manu prasad

  • Electronic Social Responsibility

    Late last year, I remember reading this article that talked about a study by Havas Media, which “looks at the impact of climate change on business from the point of view of consumer”. From the study,

    With respect to India, the survey claims that 86% of Indians would rather buy from companies that are trying to reduce their contribution to global warming. Further, 50% of Indian respondents would be more likely to buy environmentally-friendly goods in the next 12 months, if they were at the same price and standard as their usual brands. 43% would be willing to pay a little extra for those goods.

    Somebody has been listening, or more likely, had been listening for quite a while, for earlier this month, I read about Nokia India’s efforts though its ‘Take Back’ campaign, which aims to educate consumers about the recycling and re-use of old handsets and accessories. In addition to this contribution, Nokia will also plant a tree for every handset dropped at the recycling bins. I was extremely impressed by Nokia’s official notes on their efforts. As a market leader, Nokia has done a great job.

    Meanwhile, another key player has also been doing its bit for a better planet. I remember writing about Motorola last year – the Motopower project, that has 55 solar powered kiosks in Uganda offering free mobile charging to consumers. Motorola also has its share of recycling efforts, and I found its latest effort – the W233 Renew, very refreshing. This handset is the world’s first mobile phone made with plastics comprised of recycled water bottles., and is also the world’s first Carbonfree cell phone on the market.  The site also says that through an alliance with Carbonfund.org, Motorola offsets the energy used to manufacture, distribute and operate of the phone. (through investments in renewable energy sources and reforestation, courtesy Wild Blue Skies) The unfortunate bit, hopefully for now, is that this is not an India phenomenon now. Judging by the Havas Media report, Motorola is missing out on a huge opportunity in India.

    It is indeed good to see genuine efforts from major global players to make the world a better place, sustainable efforts  because they also make buiness sense, and are not spur-of-the-moment CSR initiatives.There can never be enough efforts, and in an increasingly connected world, which thrives on transparency, there’s nothing like a genuine effort to build on brand equity.

    until next time, (as a Springfield tee says) Respect Green Rules

  • Web 2.0 and transience

    As I am wont to do at infrequent intervals, I came up with one of  those  quirky connections – this one, for Tata Sky. I mentioned on Twitter that “aamir’s ghajini character could find Tata Sky Plus’ features quite useful-pause, rewind, record 😉 wonder if they’ll make a TVC with that”. In the days that followed, Asin has been extensively used in the Tata Sky campaign, so now I’m hoping thay actually make that TVC, complete with the Tata Sky helpline number tattooed on Aamir. 😉

    It led me to a tangential thought on social media. (the FB, Twitter variety, not business networking like LinkedIn) In what might amount to blasphemy, I wondered whether brands should make desperate efforts to be ‘engaging’ in social media. They need to be there definitely, but perhaps its only to know what’s being talked about them, and why. They perhaps need to be there more for reactions than actions. This also saves them the challenge of generating interesting ‘engagement ideas’ at all times.

    Why did I think all this? Because I realised that the engagement is being created by users themselves, for each other. For non web 2.0 brands, the engagement is most likely a result of something that’s been done offline. A TVC, a billboard, a radio jingle and so on. Must say, this perspective on how to use twitter for Marketing and PR made me think too.

    At one point, web 1.0 used eyeballs as measurement, that’s an idea thats not going anywhere great? Web 1.o gave us many great websites and lessons, but in a few years time, we jumped into web 2.0. The attention span and shelf lives for most things are becoming smaller. Is web 2.o just a transient phase that is needed to get us to another version? The optimist in me (which is usually bullied into submission) says that when a certain version is reached, the engagement and revenue models will manifest itself in an uncomplicated manner. (now you know why it needs to be bullied). Maybe the baby steps of getting connected are meant for simple things. Maybe it is only meant to let businesses know  that a connected world can shake up existing models. Maybe there’s some growing up to do, some discovery to be made, before revenue models and engagement by brands can happen as a regular occurrence.

    Or perhaps I’m going out of whack and being impatient. Center Networks has a good comparison of Web 1.0/ 2.0 revenue models and profitability. As this good post sums up in a different context

    New business models for media require entirely new exchanges of value — it’s not about finding new ways to balance the old equation.

    Perhaps the more meaningful discussions lie in figuring out how the basic pillars of web 2.o – connecting, sharing, collaborating-  can be used to build brands. The ‘How to use Twitter/Facebook for Marketing/PR’ are based on tools, and that would mean that we’ve been confusing tactics for strategy.

    until next time, discover 🙂

    PS: A few things that I thought were good to share

    Discovery Is The New Cocaine – Going Beyond Engagement

    View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: discovery ux)

    Social Media PR vs Social Media Marketing, and in context,a tool – CoTweet, that’d be a help to teams handling a brand on Twitter.

  • A brand is a …….. the search is on

    A few days back, Manish had an extremely interesting post titled ‘Image vs Algorithm’. It questions the relevance of ‘brand image’ in a scenario where people just ‘do a google’ when they need information about a product or brand.Yes, I know that you don’t google when you want to buy a razor or a soap, such brands would still need some good old marketing communication and POP to help swing the purchase decision in their favor (though adverse information, and the net’s ability to disperse this information would still affect them), but how about the considered purchases, where Google does its share of the work in giving information to consumers? More importantly, what does this mean for all those brands that complete their entire revenue model online?

    Wikipedia defines brand as a “a collection of symbols, experiences and associations connected with a product, a service, a person or any other artefact or entity.” (for some interesting branding quotes, drop in here, courtesy @shefaly). Earlier there was a large degree of control that the brand had on all three parameters. The internet, however, made the experiences of consumers shareable, and that has now started shaping associations – forcing official brand custodians out of the control seat, because a search for the brand throws up not just their official communication, but blogs, microblogs, images, videos, and what consumers have to say about them and competitors.

    Most of the brand lessons and theories we have evolved are from an age when communication from the brand and consumers’ individual experiences were the only parameters of judging a brand – which perhaps meant that brands like Coke took decades to become a super brand. With the advent of the net, and social media, the brand’s consumers are taking to each other. I’d touched upon this topic a while back, and mentioned the paradigm shift presented by Saatchi’s Lovemarks concept-  from “You->Your Brand->Consumer” to “You->Consumer->Their Brand”, which perhaps explains the success of internet brands like Google, Yahoo, Facebook etc. These brands have had evangelists almost right from the time they started, and the best type- consumer evangelists.

    In many ways, the 4 P’s of marketing are still relevant – the net allows very little room for ‘fluff’ around brands. WYSIWYG is a better way to be for brands, which means the product has to be fundamentally strong, and solve a problem/satisfy a need. Price comparisons are a click away, so a brand’s selling price has to be in sync with the value being offered to the consumer. The ‘place’ can be viewed from a digital perspective too – making sure the information about the brand is available easily to access and share, and if a sale can be made online, ensure that it taps into all possible sales avenues online. While the original intended meaning of ‘promotion’ still holds, perhaps its also time to ‘promote’ the evangelist consumers of the brand, helping them to share their experiences, and giving them the recognition they’d appreciate. And i’ll be a bit presumptuous, and add a lil P of my own – Pertinence (which is quite connected to ‘Place’) , “Relevance by virtue of being applicable to the matter at hand”, because we are already quite into the ‘real time web’, and heading towards the semantic web rapidly. It also means that marketers would do well to acknowledge the fluid nature that this gives their brands – in terms of what a search result (and we’re  getting social on search too) would throw up, as well as the changes that would entail in the associations formed in the consumer’s mind.

    until next time,  here’s to a piece of the consumer’s mind, and for peace of the marketer’s mind 🙂

    PS. Building a brand vs building a business. A good read.

  • Authority doesn’t figure

    The measurement of social media, or rather the lack of it, is a topic that promises to be carried over to 2009 too. I shared this article last week on Twitter, because i felt it voiced most of what I felt on ‘authority’ in social media. Coincidentally, I was also checking out Twitority – an ‘authority based Twitter search’ engine, at the same time. The first article lead me to Chris Baskind’s post on the same topic. Though I’m sorely tempted, I’m going to refrain from using block quotes from that post, because its an excellent read and you should make the effort of clicking the link and reading it all yourself. 🙂

    The new search engine has used the number of followers as a measure to decide authority. TechCrunch promptly suggested the number of RTs (ReTweet) as a better indicator. But while it does place more importance to the tweet than the tweeter, I agree that the number of RTs is just a function of the number of followers. IMHO, we’re barking up the wrong tree – popularity instead of authority. Are they connected? Yes. Are they the same? No.

    If they were the same, Twitter users should still be cheering newspapers and television and all those thingies which we call mass/traditional/heritage media, because they obviously have more ‘followers’ than the aggregate of all Twitter users. But yes, you noticed that Twitter did add a bit of value during the Mumbai events (most recently). So there’s something that’s different about this social mechanism. There’s a uniquely customised experience that we build for ourselves on social media over a period of time. Like Chris Baskind says so wonderfully in his closing  “the ad hoc nature of social media atomizes traditional concepts of authority. We may establish trusted networks, but it’s the relevance of information which really matters.”

    Shefaly threw a good pointer when she replied to my article share with a link to a post of her own. Among other things, she discusses the ‘quality of interactions’, and a four point selection criterion that she uses to ‘follow’ people, but the most important part of the article to me, was the reference to the strategic intent behind what we do on social media. (I’d argue with her on the finer points she raises on this, primarily because of the geography independence that separates virtuality from reality, but I’d completely agree that intent should drive everything else)

    A personalised, trusted network that gives me contextually relevant info (among other things) is what I get out of social media, and to me, ‘authority’ somehow just doesnt capture the way I feel about this very human network. And its not just the term. It makes me feel that maybe we are guilty of taking the term ‘follower’ a tad too literally. In trying to be ‘thought leaders’ and such, the human ego is perhaps trying to thrust upon social media a set of metrics which don’t belong. Authority reminds me of circulation, readership, listenership, viewership, and so on. Maybe its just me, but haven’t we walked that path before? Lets try a different path please.

    until next time, desperate measures?

    PS. Check ‘Mumbai’ on Twitority and you might get a clue on where ‘authority search’ will lead us

    PPS. 2009 (for now) will see this blog with an altered content strategy. The 3 posts per week are being cut down to 2 – one each on Monday and Thursday, but I shall try to post a few interesting links in addition to this. Please don’t sulk 🙂

  • Nick Niche

    Trendwatching has a small preview of the consumer trends of 2009 – half a dozen, to be exact. You can catch all 6 here. The one that interested me most was “nichetributes”, which is defined as

    the power of making products and services relevant by incorporating ‘attributes’ and features that cater to distinct (if not niche) consumer lifestyles and situations.

    While the explanation does say it’s different from the long tail, and is about “additions to existing products”, I am not convinced that its so disconnected. I’d say that its the long tail within the product users. How many times have we wished that this product had just that extra feature we were looking for – from apparel to furniture to electronic goods? But yes, I am in agreement with the fact that it is a hot trend. The explanation of nichetributes ends with the following line

    * NICHETRIBUTES is decidedly not about advertising, i.e. tailoring a mass product’s message to a specific audience; it’s about tailoring the product itself to that specific audience.

    I agree with that too, but why not advertising too, thanks to the web and social media. In fact, I think it would work great if collaborative product building was backed by a communication to let customers know that customised products can be made to happen. This would help engage the ‘minority markets’ that look for these specific features/attributes in their existing product. It could mean more affinity for the brand and may even bring in new users who were waiting for this feature. There are quite a few brands that allow customisation- NikeiD comes immediately to mind.

    In fact, I’d say that this is perhaps a great way for brands to start out on social media. While mass advertising could cater to the consumers that constitute the head of the long tail graph, social media could cater to the thinner portions. It would be great to have product customisation happening side by side, but it could also start with customised advertising to specific ‘minority markets’ – the long tail of brand communication.

    until next time, minority reports

    PS. while on trends, a great read 🙂