Category: Advertising

  • Social Branding (3 of 3)

    I’d mentioned in my last post on the subject, about a study which showed that 93% of online Americans wanted companies to have a social media presence, and believed these companies also should be interacting with consumers through social media, with one third of the younger set saying that companies should actively market to them on social media. 

    Of course, we have a different scene here in India, from what I read in WATBlog’s report on the IAMAI Digital Marketing summit, with marketers hesitating to go beyond the performance based model . I personally believe both the performance based model as well as a more ‘social’ model have their uses. To put it simply, the former is tactical, and the latter is strategic. But, I agree that it is difficult to sell the latter.

    Like I mentioned once, the measurability of the net as a medium is a double edged sword. I mean, which marketer can measure how many people saw a particular billboard, a particular ad (print or television) or heard a radio spot. The first is at best a judgment, and the rest, an approximation based on reach figures. There is zilch accountability in all cases, but the net has to be measured, even if the spend is 1% of the other media. Perhaps the fundamental love for quick, short term results that envelops the rest of marketing is prevalent here too. But yes, in the end, the intent/objective of the activity should decide the strategy in any medium.

    The best part about social media is that it allows the marketer the flexibility to do both kinds of activities. On one hand, you could be having twitter conversations, interacting on Facebook groups/profiles, and building communities ( a good how to note here)  keeping the brand strategy in view, and on the other hand, you could be running interesting promos on say, YouTube. Here is another study by iPerceptions that shows customer online ad preferences. (via Wild Blue Skies) There are independent tools being developed that measure the efficacy of  video campaigns – Visible Measures is an example, so its about time more companies got viral. I saw a few good digital promos that I’d like to share. (all US based)

    Chevrolet offered up to 10 free rides a day to college students on six campuses in a Chevy Aveo5 hatchback and filming the experience. They are then loaded on a special site, from where it can be shared on other platforms. Finalists are chosen from each college and then one grand winner will get a car. Read all about it here.  

    For their product ‘Dragon’, HP did a promo called 31 days of the Dragon. As part of this, they contacted 31influential tech bloggers to give away 31 laptops in 31 days. Each blogger ran a contest according to his rules, but also publicised others running the contest. With 3,80,000 links and 25000 entries, I would count it a success. (via Marketing Pilgrim)

    And these days the biggest marketer online is after all Obama. He’s got himself an iPhone app, which enables you to call your friends prioritized by their location in battleground states. That nothing works better than peer recommendation is a smart understanding. Read about it here.

    Nokia has a new and interesting promo running at somebody else’s phone. I wonder if its a new phone or something else altogether. The Facebook profiles of the characters don’t offer me any clue. Anyway, we’ll know in about 4 days.

    I read a post here, about an agency Modernista, that does not have a website. Big deal, you would say, most agencies here don’t have one, but the twist here is that its website is a ‘Wikipedia’ page that uses the resources of the web (Flickr, YouTube etc) to showcase its work. Its a great and radical thought, which definitely breaks the clutter.

    Lastly, take a look at this article, which talks about branded iGoogle themes. And here’s a superb compilation of companies that have used social media, but while in social media, beware of the cliches in digital marketing, especially social media. After all, Gartner has projected that over 75 percent of Fortune 1000 companies with Web sites will have undertaken some kind of online social-networking initiative for marketing or customer relations purposes. But, he added in an interview with CNET News, 50 percent of those campaigns will be classified as failures. (via a must read article) A similar small but useful note on Twitter usage can be found here. 

    As Chris Brogan has rightly written, social media is like phones, its a new (possibly better) tool, but the most important part is how it is used to reach consumers in a better way.

    The sad part is that there is still a tendency to choose easier ways of getting this job done, than getting a clear understanding of the medium and using it to the brand’s advantage. Here’s an article that talks about ways of ‘handling’ online reputation. The CEO of one such company that does this job for brands talked about cribbing sites like Mouthshut!! I wonder when these ‘practitioners’ would understand a few things – one, usually customers write negative things because they feel strongly; two, you cannot control the conversations on the web; and lastly, if companies made good products and provided good service, the same customers would write good things!! 

    until next time, be the change you want to see?

  • Really, Google?

    ….and while there have discussions and rants about the need for brands to start using digital media intelligently, the news is that the greatest internet brand of them all – Google, is all set to do some traditional advertising. Google, which had followed a policy of making good products and then letting WOM do its job, is now thinking of marketing as mere mortals see it. 🙂

    Last week, WSJ carried an article, (via Marketing Pilgrim) which stated that some of its “executives have been pushing for the company to overcome its aversion to paid advertising”. Though the founders don’t seem thrilled about the idea, “the search giant has recently held discussions with several Madison Avenue agencies”. The article also talks about Google having done a ‘100 things you can do with Google’ campaign in Japan, a market which has seen some resistance to the brand’s omnipotence. 

    Google’s annual offline spend has been consistent at about $20 million. But they have always been doing PR, even for the bordering-on-ridiculous GMail Goggles. The launch of the G1 phone, as well as the browser Chrome had a fair bit of PR running for it. Chrome even had a comic book released specifically for its launch. It is said that the brands that tell the best stories manage to gain the maximum mindshare of its audience. Wonder if there’s a correlation 😉

    I think there are a lot of layers to this. The general economy’s slowdown is bound to affect the internet space too, and perhaps the growth is going to plateau. In such a scenario, it is quite possible that Google sees traditional advertising a safe way to get some growth inorganically. After all, thats the way most brands operate. 

    Also, while Google is loved/hated and even seen in awe by netizens, sometimes very little of its aura gets translated into the real world. Perhaps with the real world slowing down, and traditional companies and brands getting hit with budget cuts, this is a good time for Google to take itself to the next level and be seen as a sort of super hero brand that can survive downturns. This is all the more important since rivals like Microsoft and Apple have never shied away from using traditional advertising. 

    Most importantly, and this is something I wish all major web based brands would do, Google, with traditional advertising, could create new audiences by showing them the sheer utility value that it provides. These could even be people who have never used the net before. That would be great news for anyone who wishes well for this medium.

    And therefore, I shall not chant ‘Google is evil’ this once, and cheerlead its foray into traditional advertising.

    until next time, I somehow don’t think Baba Ramdev is Google’s brand ambassador in India, despite this. (via Labnol)

  • Digital User Divides (2 of 3)

    Technorati recently released the ‘State of the Blogosphere 2008‘ report which throws some light on the trends in blogging. While the numbers might indicate that the phenomenon of blogging is also experiencing a slowdown, but that depends on the definition of a blog. With the increasing popularity of micro blogging services and social networks, the stream of consciousness has more than a single host – I could write restaurant reviews on Burrp, 140 character status messages on Twitter, movie or book reviews on an app in Facebook and so on.. and when i read a great post, I might not link it on my blog, but share it on delicious…I might not be blogging as Technorati defines it, but my take on life is still being ‘broadcasted’

    So, like this article, I would say that the medium and forum of expression and the nature of ‘blogging’ is changing. There is no decline in people expressing themselves. Thats growing. As per the technorati report, among global bloggers, 2/3 rds are male, 50% are 18-34 years old, and bloggers are more affluent and educated than the general population. While Technorati divides blogs roughly into personal, professional and corporate, I’d say that the long tail of personal blogs would be quite exhaustive and of key importance to brands. The pointer to this can be found in the report itself ” More than four in five bloggers post product or brand reviews, and blog about brands they love or hate. Even day-to-day experiences with customer care or in a retail store are fodder for blog posts. Companies are already reaching out to bloggers: one-third of bloggers have been approached to be brand advocates.”  There is also an indication of how the credibility of blogs is increasing.

    But let’s not make this about blogs, after all that categorisation is only one parameter of reference as far as the participation on the net goes. There could be micro bloggers, social networking enthusiasts, those who use the net for basic purposes and passive readers!! Even within these groups there are different kinds of users. For example, this post writes about the different types of social media users. and the roles they play in the entire system. I figured I was an EmCee, read the post and let me know if you agree 🙂

    So what does all this signify for brands? A recent study claimed that only 7% of customers shared their disappointment with online transactions on blogs or social networks. While that might look like a tiny number, the perspective that needs to be added is the viral effect that it could create via the readers, and unlike the bad WOM generated offline, which would cease after sometime, the post remains for a long long time.

    Meanwhile, I read a good article a few days back on Google’s work on figuring out a number that would define a user’s influence in social networking sites, basis the same principles as Page Rank. Such an idea has the potential to completely transorm the way brands use online networks. This assumes all the more significance when coupled with the findings of this study. “According to the survey, 93 percent of social media users believe a company should have a presence in social media, while an overwhelming 85 percent believe a company should not only be present but also interact with its consumers via social media. In fact, 56 percent of users feel both a stronger connection with and better served by companies when they can interact with them in a social media environment…….Likewise, of younger, hard-to-reach users (ages 18-34), one-third believe companies should actively market to them via social networks” (via Marketing Pilgrim) While on the topic of social media users, this is a good but slightly off-topic read on the whys or rather why nots of adding people on social networks. There are some good lessons in it for brands too.

    With networks like Facebook offering different ways to interact with consumers, its time that brands took the digital medium seriously and perhaps (at least) test the waters beyond the banners. There is a great article that refers to the digital divide that exists between users and non users of social media, and the role that old media can play in bridging it. It also talks about the ‘ambient intimacy’ of a micro blogging service like Twitter – “The intimacy possible over social media is at best approximate, and the proximity at best ambient. Social media can only approximate the relationships and interactions of the real.”

    I think that brands have a great opportunity to bridge the divide too, and it is important that they utilise it. The new media puts them more in touch with their consumers than ever before, gives them the opportunity to present themselves as stories in the context of their consumers’ lives, bridge the divide as common talking  points in consumers’ lives, allows them to get instant feedback which can be used to better themselves, and make evangelists out of regular users. The alternative, of course, is to continue the one way communication on mass media and hope their shout is the loudest.

    until next time, can a shout be better than a viral whisper?

  • Emotional Brand Stories (1 of 3)

    Last week, Afaqs had covered the Asia Brand Congress 2008, which throws some light on how marketers and agencies view brands and their relationships with consumers. You can read a few reports here. The first link is the rationale behind the campaigns of Zapak and Dainik Bhaskar, both using 360 degree media – one for its launch, and the other for repositioning, with a new brand ambassador. While Zapak’s execution certainly seems to be better, neither are earth shattering revelations.

    The second link is a discussion on how brands need to understand the psyche of consumers, and use ideas that would engage and inspire them. The example of ‘Idea’ brand was taken in this discussion, and as I have written before, I fully agree with the thought. The subtle thought that was communicated in this discussion was that brands should go with the flow, and go easy on the rigid structures that they build around themselves.

    The third link has discussions on different communication for brands at different steps of their lifecycle, and takes examples of Naukri, Cadburys and Coke. The last link explores Saatchi’s concept of Lovemarks,a nd speaks of a paradigm shift – from “You->Your Brand->Consumer” to “You->Consumer->Their Brand”. I found this the most interesting of all the concepts I came across (read), since it also talks of the fallacy of the 360 degree approach and the advertising wars to get the consumers’ attention.

    Before we start on the relationship between brands and consumers, here’s a long, but interesting read on the mind of the consumer. It talks about how the brain uses different structures for different brands, and is the beginning of a research in the field of neuromarketing. It is well known that the emotional relationship with a brand affects the rational purchase decision of a user. Usually brands dwell on the positive perspective of this and try to ‘attract’ consumers. What if the mind relies on the negative perspective, and is more tuned to avoid brands that it hates? Wouldn’t it be more profitable to channel campaign money into making consumers hate rival brands? The brain apparently demarcates the loved and hated brands very clearly. Should marketers be rewarded for shifting the relative position of their brands in this mental make up? Such are the interesting questions this article throws up. 

    Chris Brogan recently wrote about the book “Branding only Works on cattle” by Jonathan Salem Baskin, and his major take outs from the book. One good point that came up was how the core idea of the brand and its context (Starbucks – third place) was more important than the consumer remembering the logo. As this article correctly points out, brands should be great story tellers that weave themselves into the context of our daily lives, at consious and sub conscious levels. After all, the major portion of our ‘story’ is a sum of the brands we use. 

    Amidst the multi crore advertising blitzkreigs that brands continually unleash on their consumers, it is important for them to understand the importance of the emotional connect of consumers that affect their purchase behaviour, and perhaps dwell a little more on the core value they offer to consumers, and how they can bring it into the context of the consumers’ lives. This is specially important in an increasingly connected world, in which WOM plays an important part.

    until next time, show me some emotion, you big brand 😉

    PS. Have two more posts that take this thought forward – shall post that on Wednesday and Friday.

  • The In thing

    A few days back, I had written about wanting to see an internet entity’s brand campaign. And within a few days, as if on demand, the in.com TV commercials started appearing. In case, you haven’t chanced upon them yet, take a look here, and here. These two have highlighted two aspects of in.com – music and gaming. The others are news, mail, search and videos. The ads throw up stats of users who have been enjoying these services.

    Though my first brush with them left me highly dissatisfied, I have always liked the vertical properties they have built up over a period of time. I use Money Control and Compare India quite a lot, but that’s only 2 of the entire set that includes IBNLive, Biztech2, Storeguru, IndiWo, Bookmyshow, Yatra, Jobstreet, Cricketnext, Poweryourtrade, commodities control, Tech2, Buzz18 and Josh18. While I sometimes feel that a few of the properties overlap hugely on the service they provide and the target audience, it is quite a formidable line up. And perhaps that is what led to their reach being higher than that of the Times Group’s internet properties and only behind Rediff’s as far as Indian entities go. According to this article, In.com is already #7 in India’s portals list, and is planning to have job search, real estate search and bars and nightclubs search. Here’s an interesting post that throws some new light on those numbers.

    The site is quite different from the other portals, perhaps because of the rich interface, and, at a basic level is a massive meta-aggregator, which collects news from its own services as well as other prominent sites. To this is added a structure that builds in crowd choices, and all this creates great differentiation. The ‘reverse’ strategy of building verticals (sub brands) and then aggregating (flagship brand) is interesting, but unlike what I’ve seen in a few banners, I think “India’s homepage” is still rediff, and it will take some effort from Network 18 to topple it from that place. Its a simple recall factor, I am so used to rediff.

    Meanwhile, they are doing a lot of interesting things by way of association. The Bigg Boss tie up result is a great example, which to me is also a pointer towards some smart integration thoughts – Colors, on which Bigg Boss airs, is after all, a Viacom 18 channel. The other smart integration is MTV’s Youth Icon, MTV being another Viacom 18 venture. If this is done on a continuous basis, with more network channels, and a bit more push is given (in context) on the channels, I think In.com has a great future ahead. Will Roadies 6.0 will get to play a part soon?

    I also wonder what the role of the email service will be, after all, Rediff’s popularity was based a lot on that. It definitely has some very good features. Other than a 10 GB mailbox, linked messages, and the now common friends import from other mail services, it gives a ‘social’ touch to the service by allowing the user to share and promote content,  rate and comment on stories, add feeds and bookmarks, thereby making a customised ‘start’ page for life on the net. It is quite tempting, when compared to many other services. 🙂 But again, the lethargy factor is quite strong here. GMail and GTalk is so ingrained into my virtual life!!

    But in spite of all that, In.com has great potential as a horizontal portal and if they can continue the integration with their mass media properties and provide good service on the net, there’s no reason that they should not replace Rediff as India’s premium internet home brand, and set a benchmark on how the same entity can be a cutting edge player in traditional and new media.

    until next time, I’m in 🙂