Category: Strategy

  • Broadcast 2.0 then?

    Facebook is planning a new video-ad product that will offer video advertisers the chance to target video ads to large numbers of Facebook users in their news feeds across devices. It is also becoming more public about its Publishing Garage, that aims to put into place a set of measurements to demonstrate how well campaigns are working. Twitter has partnered with Nielsen for the the “Nielsen Twitter TV Rating” – an industry standard metric for measuring the conversation that TV shows spur on Twitter.

    The commonality I see is the shift from social to media, though to be fair, the Twitter-Nielsen partnership also talks of sentiment being measured in the future, in addition to tracking the volumes generated. I am using the term ‘social’ for two of the biggest platforms around now – FB and Twitter, but considering they have been the trendsetters, it is likely that the others will follow suit. Yes, there would be exceptions, I’m sure, but let me generalise a bit. While time will dictate whether this shift is smart or not, I’d think this shift is massively underplaying the true potential that social has thus displayed as a disruptive force. Social is now walking the measurement rules laid for a thoroughly different kind of media. (I liked this post at GigaOm because it throws light on, and questions why every social network is trying to turn into a broadcast platform) Doesn’t this put them on the same path of vulnerability that traditional media is facing now? Is this inevitable or is this sheer laziness and/or conforming? Also, from a user perspective, isn’t this a fundamentally different direction from the original premise/reason for existence of these platforms?

    Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that this is happening at the same time as users (increasingly) are treating social as broadcast – from the shoot-from-the-hip opinions on everything to the careful posturing. Not so suddenly, it’s more about numbers than actual conversations. Now what does that remind me of? 🙂 I don’t know how much of it is unconscious and how much of it is subtle nudging (read) by the networks and their features. But whatever the reasons, imagine a future where everyone behaves the way media behaves today – loud, pompous, full of themselves, ignorant to their own faults, violent towards any criticism, and generally abhorred. What happens then?

    So in the current direction I see the networks (and users) taking, the future media mashup will show more characteristics of traditional broadcast platforms than the social traits displayed by the social networks in the early days. My concern in such a scenario is because of what Godin has stated in another context – “Media doesn’t just change what we focus on, it changes the culture it is part of.” That’s when I wish social/we would be more ridiculous.

    until next time, growing pains

  • Servility or Clarity?

    Trendwatching’s October brief – Servile Brands, reminded me of a favourite OTA which was generating some buzz recently for publicly firing its PR agency. (enough clues, but no names lest I should be accused of SEO bait 😀 ) ‘Servile’ is defined as “turning your brand into a lifestyle servant focused on catering to the needs, desires and whims of your customers, wherever and whenever they are.” It relates to brands having to evolve to factors such as (from the trend brief) on demand, time compression and consumers no longer revering brands.

    Meanwhile, I would think that being ‘servile’ is scalable and useful only to a certain extent, even if an organisation is supremely wired to be the jargon word that is on an upward swing in the hype cycle – social business. In fact, I’d argue that a business can be social only if it has a clear understanding of what it stands for in terms of what its business is and how it conducts it, who its consumers are and therefore what needs it wants to satisfy. (the order of the last 2 can be switched as well) I also instinctively think that brands which can communicate this clarity across its various interactions will pull the kind of consumers it wants to have.

    ‘Servile’ implies that brands place the consumer’s needs above its own. I’m really not sure of this. Social or not, brands are in business. I doubt if bending over backward on every service request that every consumer has is a viable strategy. The reason why I remembered the aforementioned OTA is because of their reaction to an incident I wrote about in ‘Mean Brands‘.

    The current version of social – pandering to every consumer – is arguably swinging to this extreme. Hopefully, brands will soon learn that there is a middle path and that is the most viable one. The brands who reach there faster will be able to weather the storms ahead better, because they would have a compass. The compass is their clarity of purpose. Scaling it across the organisation is the challenge, and the fun. 🙂

    until next time, all clear?

  • A new era of work

    Sometime back, I had written about institutional realignment – on how the internet will slowly eliminate the middlemen across industries and disrupt every institution that we have built thus far – political, societal, economical, professional, cultural, health and so on. This would have massive impact on our sense of identity and how we live as a society.

    A couple of weeks back, I read this interesting post at Pando Daily titled “Are we becoming a world without big companies?” The post quoted AngelList founder Naval Ravikant “the world would be increasingly made up of very small startups interacting with each other through APIs. No big corporations.” The corporation, at this point in time, plays a lot of middlemen roles – from our sense of identity to global relations – and continuing from my earlier thought, I think the internet will disrupt this one too.

    Which then makes one think of the workforce currently employed in the corporations – that’s most of us. 🙂 From 3D printing which is poised to disrupt the already shaky manufacturing industry and the not-so-shaky distribution systems to singularity, which will have major implications on our health, education and employment, there are macro changes that will affect us. Even the best minds would not have a definite answer on what/ where the jobs of the future would be. As Ray Kurzweil has stated in this interesting interview, “People couldn’t answer that question in 1800 or 1900 either. ” (when asked about the scene in 2000)

    It then brings me to something I believe will be the key to survive and flourish in the coming age – the willingness and ability to live with uncertainty. In this excellent read in the WSJ titled “Learning to Love Volatility“, Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues that rather than trying to predict black swan events, we should be building institutions that are not fragile and can withstand and even benefit from disorder and unexpected events. Though an institution is the protagonist here, I think there are lessons for individuals too.

    In a way, humans could be considered open APIs that big corporations and governments used to meet their ends, it would be interesting to see a future that reverses this. 🙂

    until next time, be the change….

  • Branded Content.. Returns

    Branded content is making a comeback, I think. I call it a comeback because I noticed quite a few posts in the last few days, but this is something that has been discussed at least since 2009. (here and here) One of the posts I saw was this one which called branded content a game changer for brands. In terms of imagery, I prefer this version of the image, (note the year of posting 🙂 ) largely because the way it pictorially blurs the lines between paid, owned and earned media. In fact, given the way many bloggers accept payment and post no disclosure, the lines are blurred even within each sub-category!

    As you can see, precious little has changed. But the ‘little’ that has changed has made quite an impact – Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have made their way into ‘paid’ as well. In fact, they’re in all three kinds of media. What we call traditional media can at best be in two places at the same time – earned and paid, and that’s obviously why social has disrupted what we just knew as media.

    I wonder if during the dawn of traditional media, anyone would have thought of ‘owned media’ the way we understand it now. Its arrival has been recent but it’s busy delivering near-death blows to other forms of media, which are now forced to adapt. Brands are now scrambling to create a mix that will help them meet their strategic communication objectives, even as they deal with the challenges of multiple platforms, screens and technologies across which they have to deliver a seamless, cohesive stream. But increasingly social is also falling into the frameworks of its predecessors. Revolution is fading into evolution!

    What intrigues me is what happens next – after even this gets optimised. In the medium term, there will obviously be more channels, specially in ‘owned media’, but when this disruption becomes ‘traditional’, what is that new paradigm that will appear? Can you visualise beyond the current owned-earned-paid framework?

    Probably navigational media that will help us make sense of the other three! Also completes OPEN. 😉

    until next time, contend with that

  • Mean better than average?

    BBH Labs offered some excellent perspective in a post titled ‘Mean Brands‘ a few days ago, which pointed out that when brands are asked to be more human online, we overlook the fact that humans are not nice online. Expanding on this, they showcased three scenarios – brand vs consumer, brand vs brand and brand vs organisation – with examples, and asked whether this was a good strategy to build stronger brand allegiance.

    I was reminded of something I had tweeted earlier this year when Cleartrip was at the receiving end of some good old fashioned twitter outrage when putting an abrasive and stupid (non) customer in his place. I was convinced after going through the preceding tweets that Cleartrip had tried their hand at explanation before getting exasperated and reacting with sarcasm, just like a human. It was bold, but more importantly it also showed character and conviction.

    Even as brands are trying to be human, humans are becoming (or are trying to become) brands. When they do get an audience, an increased sense of self-importance is inevitable. Most of the time, objectivity is minimal and the thrill of shaming/trolling a brand is too tempting. So perhaps a level playing field is only fair. Of course, it is always more fun when the knockout punch is delivered with a solid punchline. Richard Neill’s comedic rant and Bodyform’s hilarious response is an example. A few more here. (via @sunnysurya)

    until next time, brands mean business!