Category: Advertising

  • Brands – Maturity, Transparency, Objectivity

    On the day that gay sex was made legal in India, I had wondered aloud on Twitter, whether condom brands like KS, Moods or even a deo brand like Axe – whose communication is all about attracting people (the female gender so far, since its a deo for men) – would use the occasion to provide a bit of a twist in their standard advertisements. As expected, none of them did. Which led me to wonder on the maturity of audiences and those of brands. (‘maturity’ for the lack of a better word, a more elaborate description follows)

    From an experience in an earlier place of work, when we had played on the visuals of Sai Baba and Jimi Hendrix and talked about music and religion, I have seen the fear that marketers have about how the consumer will react to a communication that could be taken as offbeat. In the case above, one could argue about hurting sentiments of followers (Sai Baba’s, according to the client, Hendrix’, worried the copywriter 😀 ), but there really wasn’t anything derogatory. Now that may be a subjective reaction, so let’s go back to the initial example. I’m reasonably sure that even if KS/Moods/Axe had thought of this, they might have decided not to pursue it.

    Is that because of a simple positioning mismatch that they perceive, or is it a fear to push the boundaries, of what they perceive as acceptable to their audience? Something that goes against the image they have created. But, as we keep discussing here, consumers are moving on. They talk to each other, and share their experiences about the brand, which may or may not work in advantage of the brand.

    Meanwhile, I recently read an article in the New York magazine, which got me thinking quite a bit on this subject. The article was titled ‘Say Everything‘, and talked about what the author perceived to be the largest generation gap since the hippie generation. While the extreme scenarios outlined in the article- of the kind of photos and complete transparency, of thinking of themselves as having an audience, of archiving their adolescence, of having a thicker skin than earlier generations- may not be what the average youth indulges in in his community, it does point to a generation which is growing increasingly uninhibited with sharing more and more of themselves with others on the net. The author points out that with surveillance cameras, transaction tracking etc becoming the norm, this complete transparency approach might be a saner route.

    In fact aren’t FB/Twitter status updates, and even online journals that many in my generation indulge in, also cases of living for an audience? The details of what they share might vary when compared to a younger user set, but this seems to be a trend that may not be scaled back, and in all possibilities, would increase. With the social tools that keep improving the ways to communicate, and share, can brands afford to cling to the kind of communication that they are used to delivering to the audience?

    In another article I read, YouTube blogger Kristina Horner, who was criticised for working with Ford Fiesta, makes a wonderfully simple, yet passionate argument that for “both bloggers and brands to be successful they need to accept that traditional advertising is not-effective (and even rejected) and that publishers like Kristina can find a win-win situation where a brand supports their work without compromise.”

    Would being completely transparent (yes, that is a bit of a redundancy, i guess) ensure that brands get a fair deal from the people they communicate to? Like I read in another context, would transparency fulfill the function that objectivity is supposed to?  But as always, transparency is not something that can operate only in communication, it moves to product, and many other functions within the organisation. So, as more and more consumers realise what Kristina has articulated so well, shouldn’t brands also take some initiative in changing themselves, and collaborating with their consumers?  That would take some maturity, i guess. 🙂

    until next time, audible audiences

    PS. For those missing the Tool Aid that is the blog’s staple diet, here are a few interesting reads

    The Sysomos in depth Twitter study that places India in the top 10 countries in which Twitter has been growing.

    The Razorfish Social Influence Marketing report.

    The Wetpaint/ Altimeter list of the world’s most engaging brands, and how there might be a link between engagement and financial performance

  • Aggregation and Segregation

    The ‘Morgan Stanley report‘, compiled by their 15 year old intern- on how teens (UK ) consume media- released a few days ago, got less than an enthusiastic response on the web, in spite of (or because?) their introduction stating that they don’t ‘claim representation or statistical accuracy’.

    While newspapers and radio find least favour with the teen crowd, with TV interest waning (except for spikes – sports/ specific shows), even the star on the horizon – Twitter is not spared their inattention, but Facebook, YouTube, and even Google are mentioned as regularly used services. Mobiles are used for talking and texting, and sharing files via bluetooth. (via RWW and TechCrunch) The report is based on anecdotal evidence (not statistical), so its no surprise that its been ripped on many sites. As TC mentions, probably the idea was only to spark off a debate, and not to showcase it as conclusive insights. It still shows how there is clearly not much data available on this age group, so anything goes.

    But I do remember a research published by Nielsen sometime back on how teens use media (US). According to that report, TV usage has gone up in this age group, teens spend less than half the time adults do on the internet, a quarter of them read a newspaper and texting is huge. In both reports, the relative unimportance of the internet is a revelation, especially when it is seen by many as THE medium that’s popular in this age group. As per a 16 year old’s post on TC, (this is anecdotal too 🙂 ) the other point to note is that the walled garden nature of Facebook is actually seen in positive light by this group. Twitter’s relative openness means that they have lesser control on who sees their status updates. The other factor is that they don’t want to waste money texting messages to Twitter, when they’d rather text their specific friends.

    So there are similarities within the age group and there are differences too. This is not the first ‘generation’ study out there. I remember reading at least a couple of comparative studies on how different generations use the net, or technology per se, and there again were trends. There were also quite a few articles on Gen Y (those born between 1980 – 95) – their top social networks (take a look, you’ll find very interesting sites, which you might not have heard about before) , how marketers goof up when targeting them, and a favourite post (and video – The Lost Generation. yes i know it is inspired 😐 ) of mine that talks about the motivations of different generations.

    Trendwatching had the concept of Generation G ( G for generosity), with the trend drivers of recession and consumer disgust, longing for institutions that care, and giving being the new taking, and sharing being the new giving. It also gives ways in which corporates can join this generation, and talks about joining being a fundamental requirement if they wanted to stay relevant to this generation.

    The Morgan Stanley report and the backlash that followed made me wonder as to how, even as we admit that there is indeed media fragmentation and user fragmentation, realise that a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not work, and that digital media gives users so much of content that there is choices galore and something for every niche, we still try to figure out broad patterns to carry out segmentation, and create some structure around all the crowds that inhabit all the spaces – real and virtual. We even call it social media so that we can put it under one umbrella and make a single plan for all the sites that come under it. Is it because marketers are afraid that dealing with an unstructured audience means fresher, better ideas all the while, without easy ways of targeting, without ready made templates and without real knowledge of how it will all end up?

    I also wonder whether this is a transition phase when new media are evolving, along with new communication protocols, or is this the way it is going to be from now on – a thoroughly fragmented audience which cannot be fitted into any stereotype – not even as Gen Y Facebook users? As the costs of distribution become lower thanks to multiple platforms/channels with fewer audiences and reversals of content demand-supply chains, will the spend actually be on the creation of multiple kinds of communication that will be designed with a tiny audience in mind, and the content creators could be anyone – a brand manager/ creative agency/ consumer or a combination, and the activities of a brand are as unstructured as the real time arena it operates in? Do you think it would ever come to that, or is this just the chaos in between while we figure out new ways of sorting consumers for new forms of media?

    until next time, agents of chaos 🙂

    PS. While on generations, read yet another great post from Umair Haque – the Generation M manifesto

  • Inside Intel

    A video that was shared yeterday on Facebook by a friend got me to check out Intel’s latest global campaign – Sponsors of Tomorrow. I then remembered that a few days back I’d seen a half jacket (a page takeover on pages 1, 2) in TOI, which talked about the same thing though it seemed a cobranded effort with TOI called Innovators of tomorrow. [Disclosure: I work for the Times Group.]

    The campaign videos on YouTube were quite interesting. In addition to the ‘Rock star’ and ‘Oops’ TVCs, there are also videos of real employees at intel (is that the same Ajay Bhatt referred to in the Rock star video?) and an interactive ‘In the future i want..‘ which featured random people interviewed at the Times Square, and billboards which displayed these ‘ideas’. I was a bit intrigued by the campaign, and a Google search took me to the press kit and the official site.

    While the tagline is ‘Sponsors of tomorrow’, the campaign’s communication strategy seems to be two pronged – one, to expand on the line, and show what happens behind the scenes and how through innovation, they aim to be the ‘sponsors of tomorrow’, and two, to promote the people behind the technology. What got me intrigued was the execution.

    The single line take outs from the videos were – “Our big ideas aren’t like your big ideas”, “Our rock stars aren’t like your rock stars”. While the videos are indeed funny and convey the perspective clearly,  I wonder if those are the kind of statements, that will really inspire people to send in ideas. From the Innovators of Tomorrow effort and the website, there seems to be an agenda of interactivity, since it calls for ideas.

    On innovation and technology. Somewhere, hidden in the press release, I saw a sentence that amounted to “Its not technology, its what technology can do for them that’s important to people”. It’d have been great to see Intel expand on this and show consumers what Intel technology has made possible and what it is attempting to make possible. The global site wasn’t very impressive. “You on tomorrow” is the interactivity effort there and I promptly filled up “in the future I want__________” with “websites that load faster” and that wasn’t being frivolous. Maybe I’m reading too much science fiction, but even the 2128 Delhi video wasn’t very futuristic – holography and body scan after 19 years isn’t exactly the kind of advancement a bleeding edge  technology giant like Intel should limit its imagination to, IMHO.

    People behind the technology. Funny videos and self deprecating humour is great, the point is made. But if they wanted to showcase the people behind the efforts, this seems to be a better thing to have promoted – employee blogs. (the first comment is worth a read) And better ways using different platforms to get the people working on the technology to share how the technology they work on helps improve consumer experiences, lifestyles etc. That might generate a little more involvement than ads showing how Intel’s rock stars are different, and interactive games that deal with suiting up an engineer!! As a consumer this just made Intel geekier for me. What happens inside Intel is  definitely important, however, what it does to life outside could’ve been a more effective communication from an interactivity perspective. What do you think?

    until next time, I don’t think Intel will sponsor tomorrow’s posts 😉

    The views expressed here are solely mine, that really should go without saying. But we live in an evil world. 🙂

  • Zoozoology..and more

    The jury is still out (and perhaps permanently so) on who actually won the IPL – the fake IPL player or the Zoozoos. Both massively popular, they even have conspiracy theories built around them – the identity in case of  the former and the inspiration(cached) in case of the latter. There is even a minority who claim that actually the Deccan Chargers won, but that really isn’t relevant. 😉

    I thought the Zoozoos were adorable. The usage of Mallu food terminology in the International Roaming ad added to the fervour. I remember starting at least 2-3 conversation threads on Facebook and Twitter, the ‘people behind the zoozoos’ image i shared on Twitpic got more than 250 clicks, and I saw quite a number of online and mainstream articles on them. Yes, there were many real conversations as well across age bands. There is no doubt in my mind on the amount of buzz that was created.

    As per the afaqs article, the Vodafone brief seemed to be very clear – increase the awareness of VAS services among new acquisitions in a manner that would really stand out.  A small number of people I spoke to managed to remember the VAS services associated with each ad. I felt that the lateral interpretation of the services, or rather the rendition of that, made me try to connect before the ad ended, so it worked for me.  I even started seeing them in unrelated contexts. But a lot of people just remembered the zoozoos. Just like they remembered the pug. Now the association betweenthe Zoozoos and Vodafone would be established easily, I think, since the competition was Madhavan and Vidya Balan.

    But then, there are these little things that happen outside advertising and in the consumer experience space. Like the ‘Hutch’ that appears as the network on my phone screen. Last week, I got this call from a Vodafone customer care executive, who informed me that I could pay my bill by ECS, and that was more convenient than my current way of paying by cash. Nice, but the only snag was, I’d been using ECS for more than 3 years now. I now wonder how my billing happens smoothly.

    All of this made me think about two things. One, whether brands are thinking about segmenting their existing and potential user base, and then further evolving strategies and communication basis this. So, while the Zoozoos were extremely entertaining and informative, I really wondered about relevance. Did the Zoozoos change my perception of Vodafone? Would there have been a difference if Airtel or Reliance brought out the Zoozoos? Not just to me, who is often irritated by the Vodafone service (like many others in Bangalore) thanks to coverage and call drops, but other user segments as well.  Is this way of communication just a function of the media vehicles that are in use now, which allow very limited ways of segmentation? Will the internet and mobile really change this thinking?

    Two, from a slightly larger perspective, will buzz marketing become an end in itself? Somewhat like the trending topics on twitter, which earlier gave an indication of what the ‘happening’ conversations on Twitter were, but now are just self fulfilling memes. The Twitter reference indicates unhappiness but the original query is in all earnestness. Buzz marketing with no trackback to the brand strategy? Is this more tempting when we’re dealing with a real time way of connecting and communicating? How does this stack up against building brand equity over large timeframes? Does it matter anymore? Or is a positive history of buzz marketing sufficient? In the case of Vodafone, they succeeded in creating so much buzz that editorial space in mainstream dailies were devoting space to them. Online, there were FB groups and Twitter mentions and posts after posts. I could write about engagement and conversation in social media, but where does all that lead to? Where do the Zoozoos go from here? Do they continue to be brand mascots, or are they good enough only for a buzz? Good enough to increase TOM and therefore affect sales in a tactical way?  So, is frequent buzz marketing + good consumer experience = brand strategy? Meanwhile, if the buzz has been generated, can we put up a few more towers and spruce up the data centre?

    until next time, omnibuzz

  • What’s on TV? The Internet

    The confluence of web and TV has been a topic of discussion for quite sometime now. The initial version of Web TV- with a set top box and keyboard, didn’t work out well, but that hasn’t stopped the next generation from making attempts, and with all the components required for access built into the TV now, things are showing some promise.

    Yahoo’s TV widgets, with Flickr, news, finance etc integrated onscreen in Samsung TVs had created quite a stir at the CES 2009 event earlier this year. Yahoo and Intel have also co-developed a range of products that lets users access pages and tools while watching a program – around 20 widgets (scaled down versions) from the NYT to MySpace and Twitter. Yahoo will also release a toolkit for developers to make new content.Yahoo is not the only player here. Netflix has tied up with LG for a new line of broadband high-def TVs with Netflix built in to it. More on that here.  Verismo Networks has a PoD device – VuNow that can stream web content onto your TV without a PC or connections. (via Bangalore Inc) On another front, there are gaming consoles and DVD players etc with built in broadband access abilities.

    Meanwhile, the convergence is happening on the reverse direction too. With the net becoming a competition to TV channels as a source of entertainment, the reverse is also happening as a lot of television content is now finding its way into the net, legally. 🙂 Comcast, Time Warner Cable etc are now entering the fray with a two fold objective – to take more content online, and make the TV experience more web like. Closer to home, Star TV had tied up with nautanki.tv earlier this year to watch shows online. A couple of months back, the Times Audience Network added Big Adda as a video content partner. More about that here. Hmm, Bigflix + Big Adda?

    It is also interesting to see web based entities going beyond their current territories. Portals, like Sulekha creating Web TV. Internet video site Hulu getting into social networking. Will expand on that in a bit.

    Meanwhile, television content (shows) have started using social media to add a layer to their interactivity. MTV recently announced plans to launch a show that will also include real-time conversations taken from Facebook and Twitter, allowing users to interact with the show as it airs.  Users will be able to upload videos (their favourites and even self generated ones) through a RockYou application.(via TC) Mad Men’s tryst with Twitter, though fan generated is also a case study.

    An interesting concept I came across on TC – Delivery Agent, which helps TV networks make use of their content by being an online marketplace for products and merchandise that are seen on television shows. It pays the network a royalty for this. According to the TC article, they have gone step further by checking the index of products scheduled to appear on the show, before the show airs, and then approach the brands concerned to buy an ad package. It seems like a win-win-win concept. With even a partially enabled web on TV, this concept could be easily integrated and made into real time purchases. Absolutely measurable for brands. Imagine saans – bahu saris, wedding costumes and even office and casual wear that can be bought online. The Jassi look, or the more recent Ballika Vadhu look, anyone? 😉

    TVLoop, which started out as a Facebook app that allowed users to have view TV show episodes on their profile , has now gotten itself a website of its own.If you comment on an episode of the show on TVLoop.com, TVLoop users on Facebook or any other social network can reply directly from their respective site. (via Mashable) The Hulu social network I mentioned earlier encourages Hulu users to connect with one another and share their video preferences. The new features are expected to help Hulu better track viewing preferences, which helps further target ads. It also helps monitor conversations around videos and therefore provides more data on viewer behaviour. In both cases, the key take out is collective feedback – on content, ads served etc. From tweaking storylines and characters to embedding products better, having conversations around them and making purchase decisions easier, there is tremendous potential.

    Web on TV, TV on web, web TV and social networking, TV and social networking, at the end of it, the point is about content on demand- across platforms, a rapid increase in interactivity, and the potential to increase the relevance of a product/service to consumers and encourage purchase almost instantly.  In an era when vanilla product placements are becoming increasingly unpopular with viewers, this content integration across platforms could be the kind of tonic that’s needed for a system that currently thrives on sponsored (and usually non related, random) advertising and  insipid product placements. From the other side, the web’s current major advertising mechanism – contextual advertising just got more content to play with, and this could spawn an entire new way of advertising.

    As for me, I’m waiting for the time when I can watch the YouTube videos, Flickr photos and Twitter updates and the TV news on the same screen, and then real time reality TV, when I use my Twitter handle to eliminate participants and generally decide their fate 😉

    until next time, users, from publishers on the web to broadcast producers