Category: Brand

  • Social + Scale = #fail ?

    Remember the post on Social Media Explorer titled ‘Is Content Marketing the new Advertising?’ I had linked to earlier, while on the subject of content, media and distribution?

    To me, content marketing will indeed be a key player in a brand’s strategy – communication and otherwise, because with the explosion of content across various internet and even other delivery platforms, and the increasing number of stimuli that the typical consumer is subject to, sheer volume might be needed, in addition to context, and relevance.

    So, the thought then moved on to the creation of content. There are constraints to what UGC can achieve, and all brands may not have that luxury. So, what would be a good way to generate this in-house?  That’s when I looked at it from the perspective of last week’s post – on the evolution of ‘social’ as a concept and the software it entails, and the subject of how social media will scale?

    And not surprisingly, I arrived at culture. And a rewiring that will include changing roles in the various functions of the organisation. The two that come prominently to mind? HR, to not just use the tools at their disposal and hire people who have innate passion for the organisation’s domain, but also in being the torchbearer of the organisation’s new culture. Marketing, to harness this in-house talent, surface their creations – product or content or service processes, and see how it can be scaled and communicated. This would not only connect people with a common interest  internally but also empower them, make them feel responsible and enable them to communicate this to an external crowd using their own networks.

    These are only a couple of thoughts in a couple of functions, but even getting the rest of the organisation aligned around these might be a good start. More importantly, when this happens, the organisation might be then better equipped to engage with the crowd, culturally and operationally. ‘Social’ could then aim to scale.

    until next time, multiply and rule 🙂

    For those interested in the subject

    Gautham’s post on social and scale

    Social Induction, my post last week on social software and the larger purpose.

    My last few posts on social and scale – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  • Social Induction

    ‘Disparate’ perhaps wouldn’t describe it best, but definitely 3 different posts in terms of scope and point of focus, but which I thought were in their own way, circling one of this blog’s favourite topics – how organisations can fundamentally become more social – not just from a usage of tools across its ‘silos’ but more from an ‘adding meaning to the individual and society’ perspective.

    Stowe Boyd’s post titled ‘Are you ready for social software‘ not only gave me perspectives on the subject of the post, and title – social software, but also gave me a way to connect these three posts. He starts of with challenging the belief that Sherlock Holmes used deduction to solve the mysteries.

    It turns out he (or better, Arthur Conan Doyle) was using induction, which is, according to Webster’s, “the act or process of reasoning from a part to a whole, from particulars to generals, or from the individual to the universal.” In working from a paltry collection of clues to a full understanding of the actions and motives of the butler and his victim, Holmes/Doyle was, basically, developing a picture of the universe surrounding the crime from a few hints.

    He goes on to distinguish social software from software built for several purposes taken to mean ‘social’.

    Social software is based on supporting the desire of individuals to affiliate, their desire to be pulled into groups to achieve their personal goals. Contrast that with the groupware approach to things where people are placed into groups defined organizationally or functionally…..Traditional groupware puts the group, the organization or the project first, and individuals second….. Social software reflects the “juice” that arises from people’s personal interactions. It’s not about control, it’s about co-evolution: people in personal contact, interacting towards their own ends, influencing each other.

    Its a fascinating read and he quotes Kenneth Boulding, the economist, humanist and social scientist,“We make our tools, and then they shape us.” I thought that was an amazing way to look at it, and if you think for a moment on how tools have changed the way you behave, interact, consume, I’m sure you’ll appreciate it too.

    Amazingly, even without getting into software or technology, I saw an application of this thought process in Tom Fishburne’s Wiki Wall, a symbol of organisational creativity that could prove more useful than the traditional ‘brainstorm’. The wiki wall (a real whiteboard/surface)  allows ideas to be shared, collaborated on, and evolve over a period of time beyond the silos that the organisation might have. Shared belief systems and thoughts around which people could group together.

    Which then brings us to the ‘larger purpose’ that an organisation exists for. This purpose is something that has popped up here many times in the recent past, the last being ‘A Social Culture‘. I found it expressed extremely well in Umair Haque’s post on the way ‘social’ needs to evolve.

    Social is significance. The real promise of social tools is societal, not just relational; is significance, not just attention. You’ve got to get the first right before you tackle the second — and that means not just investing in “gamification,” a Twitter account, or a Facebook group. It means thinking more carefully how to utilize those tools to get a tiny bit (or a heckuva lot) more significant, and starting to mean something in enduring terms.

    For now, most organisations are looking at social tools (including software) to meet their business ends, and not looking to make the business’ ‘reason for existence’ itself something people – both employees and consumers- would associate with. Hopefully, by the time they deduct the importance of this, it won’t be too late.

    until next time, elementary? 🙂

  • Update 2.010

    So, the Twitter bio now has an addition “Columnist”. Readers of my other blog, and the restaurant reviews I post there, would know that I’ve been doing reviews for Bangalore Mirror for a while now. The other column I’m responsible for is also up and running well now, judging by the feedback I’ve received. This one is titled ‘Ideas @ work’, and in it, we feature Bangalore based startups. The column appears every Monday, usually on Page 4. I’ve been updating them on the new space on the right column- ‘In print’, but in case you haven’t noticed, the ones that have been featured so far are Oye Happy, LifeMojo, MobStac, Revu, Recruiterbox and The India Market. Big thanks to Kiran, Praveen (an old chronicler in this area), Kesava and Amit, who have helped me with thoughts and leads. 🙂

    I’ve always been interested in start ups, on many levels – because many of them work in spheres that are new, relatively unexplored and are exciting, because many a time they see the same things but view it differently and thus creating something that’s valued, and also because at a larger level, they are following their heart and being part of something that matters.

    Its been a very interesting experience so far and finding and talking to people who have an idea they’re passionate about, and willing to work hard on it, has done a lot for my own thinking as well. We’re also going to dedicate about one column a month for social entrepreneurship ventures.

    So, in case you come across an interesting Bangalore based startup, feel free to ping me at manu(dot)prasad @ gmail (dot) com.

    until next time, upstart 😉

  • A different social circle

    The ‘inefficiencies of scale’ in a social business scenario is something I keep writing about – wrote about it recently in the context of Google vs Facebook too. So I found this article, which was about the demise of Facebook in 5 years, very interesting. Though predictions are dime a dozen and are many a time used as traffic boosters, this one comes from a person who predicted the decline of MySpace four years back. What interested me even more was that he said the single social networking platform concept will give way to smaller networks.

    Meanwhile, after all the hype Google Me generated, and expectations of launch in Fall 2010, our knowledge remains at a ‘social layer’ level and its internal project name – Emerald Sea. So, when i saw Google’s foray into fashion – boutiques.com, and its working, I wondered for a moment whether this could be another rendition of Google Me. After all, a common interest is a great context for social interaction too. And over a period of time, search would be honed better and be social too, with a curation (like shown in Boutiques’ case) that goes beyond algorithm and crowd.  This interest could be a place (say hello to Google Hotpot), or an interest that aggregates people, like books. (yes, Google’s store is coming soon) That would be changing the social landscape quite a a bit. Add to it shopping and say, a GroupOn integration by context/location and Google will have fun, not to mention local advertising revenues. It would also have a better grip on aspects like privacy, influence, and would be smaller networks rather than an all encompassing one. Its a bit of wild and far fetched thought specially when we know that Google Me is now slated for Spring 2011, but interesting, you think?

    until next time, off for a fortnight 🙂

  • Content, Media, Distribution

    I read an interesting post at Social Media Explorer titled ‘Is content marketing the new advertising‘. More than the specific subject itself, which I write about occasionally, it made me wonder about the various entities that seem to be vying for the marketer’s attention. So even if we do limit ourselves to the thought that brands (and businesses) would create their own content, how does the distribution work?

    I remember writing about this a few weeks back, and asking whether content is merely a titular king and distribution is the real power. Its ironic because much of the power of the web’s second wave is in the ability to create content and distribute it fast. But over a period of time, the platforms we use for sharing have undergone a consolidation. The presence of traditional media outlets and brands on these platforms validate this.

    Now if we zoom out further and consider the various other things that are making their presence felt – social gaming, location based services (check out the Foursquare-Pepsi and SCNGR-Coke deals, and the new contexts of advertising they’re creating), group buying; apps on iPhone/ iPad (Murdoch and Branson are making a newspaper/magazine specifically for iPad) and Android. (do add on) This is in addition to the terrains that the incumbents – Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter will discover and develop at least for some more time, and the technological possibilities that will arise. (eg. Augmented Reality, and the return of QR codes) Each of them are building their own distribution systems, and its difficult to bundle all the ‘content’ that appears on them under one umbrella. And that’s only the digital world.

    All of this also makes me think of destination sites. I can count mine on one hand. Every other consumption is via Reader/Twitter/Facebook and occasionally email. When the web (and its consumption) is rebuilt around people and their connections, what value does a destination site (belonging to a brand) add? How does the brand deal with fragmentation? The good news for the brands is that there are many more options than ever before. Not every campaign needs to be a TVC, radio spot, newspaper ad, site banner. There are smaller, more scalable and more flexible options. The challenge is to find them, and develop things that enable them to connect with the consumers. We live in interesting times indeed.

    until next time, many kings and many thrones