Tag: credibility

  • Brand agencies redux

    One of the ways to measure brand communication is to view it through the prisms of effectiveness and efficiency. I sometimes get the feeling that with time, mass media became more of an efficiency game. Then social technologies came along and forced the marketer to acknowledge (the forgotten) effectiveness criterion. That would explain the resistance to adoption, since communication strategy would have to change to accommodate it.

    A brand manager would ideally like a balance of both though. Meanwhile, somewhere on planet Quora, I voted up our friend Gautam Ghosh’s answer on ‘influence’. Apparently, an old HBR article (2005) had defined influence as a factor of two aspects – visibility and credibility. Considering that a brand is also aiming for influence, I found the connection between visibility/credibility and efficiency/effectiveness very interesting.

    I think the ROI debates are also a manifestation of seeking efficiency, though very few distinguish between cost and investment (I). The good news is that once tools are developed to address this, (I hope) brand custodians will focus on effectiveness too. I was very happy to read Jason Falls’ post about tools that are beginning to address scale too. (Expion and other social media tools to manage franchisee operations) While these tools would most likely scale themselves to accommodate new platforms and technologies that arise later, the bad news is that effectiveness is still something that can be judged only by someone who understands the brand as well as the platform in question.

    A quick detour. I recently started playing ‘Restaurant City’ just to get a feel of social games, and found Coke doing a pretty decent branding exercise there, that integrated well with the game mechanics and experience. The entire social gaming arena is already exploding. Farmville is passe, and Cityville is king. And that’s just one platform. How does a brand manager keep himself in the loop on all this, and experience enough to have reasonably good perspectives? So the idea of filtering experiences in multiple platforms to get perspectives on effectiveness is something I think only an agency can scale. And the more I think of this, the more I feel that this is the opportunity area for agencies – both communication (PR, Advertising) and media buying. I will state the obvious by saying that this is not likely to happen in their current avatars though. Your thoughts?

    until next time, agents of change

  • BoT – Brands on Twitter

    A few days back, there were a couple of very interesting posts on Mashable – on the topic of whether brands belong to Twitter- one post against, and a couple of days later, a rebuttal. The first post first suggests a fee for brands to be part of Twitter, and then says that they should be banned altogether since it would be against the spirit of Twitter. It finally advocates the use of personalities, since people like to talk to people. The second post, while agreeing that spam accounts are generally disliked, states that brands can have personalities too, and gives some great examples, and tips for brands on Twitetiquette.

    I thought these posts and the issue of bloggers being paid to write posts about brands (which surfaces when we are sufficiently bored of doing this guy’s job of finding revenue models for social media) were two sides of the same coin. The issue of trust is being tackled from two sides.

    In the case of brands being on Twitter, the argument is that faceless brands cannot be authentic or transparent like a real person. How can we trust such an entity? In the case of bloggers who are paid to write posts about brands, the argument is that if they are paid for it, how can we trust the veracity of what they’ve written?

    In both the cases, the answer will emerge by itself, in time. If brands use this as a one way communication medium, to just broadcast, without having interesting conversations or adding value for the audience, the crowd will treat it as a broadcaster and move away, unless there is some really awesome content being shared all the while. If bloggers make up stuff about a brand, and transmit it to their readers, the crowd will remember not to trust them the next time.

    A bit more on the topic of brands on Twitter, since its debatable whether the brand should be itself, or have a spokesperson who represents it. Its understood that behind every brand (not including spam accounts) on Twitter, is a human being, even he is one that first configured Twitterfeed to send out ‘auto tweets’. So, I am guessing that what would’ve happened more often than not, is that an individual came on to twitter, discovered how cool it was, and then decided that it was a great place for his organisation/brand to communicate to the outside world, which contains his consumers and potential consumers. A chance for the brand to talk about itself, and hear from consumers what they had to say.

    The individual would already have an equity on Twitter, and would enjoy the trust of those who follow him. Considering how a blogger who writes a paid-for-post (even with disclosure) is almost crucified, it is understandable if he wouldn’t want to mix his own equity with that of the brand’s equity, especially when there is every chance that the organisation may not have a policy on social media, and he wouldn’t be getting paid like the celebrity blogger. Also he doesn’t even know how long he would be with the organisation. Lastly, by mixing a personal account with a brand, the person might be constrained to speak of things in context with what the organisation does.

    Keeping all this in mind, I’d have liked to say that brands belong on Twitter, as brands. After all, we already have people building personal brands. In fact, organisations should perhaps look at multi functional teams which can communicate with consumers on different aspects with authority and domain knowledge, so that over a period of time, they can re-create the credibility they enjoy in the real world, in the digital world too. This post, however, gives some great points on why the logo should be replaced by a public face.

    In summation, though, I’d have to say that as always with any strategy, it’d have to boil down to intent. As this wonderful post correctly says, “The beauty of Twitter is that it is what you make of it, and you can make so many things of it”. What do you think?

    until next time, brands are limitless characters?

    PS. … and in this season of giving, here are 2 good resources I’d like to share with you

    In return, i’d request you to give a few minutes of your time and participate in the Exchange4Media.com & Blogworks.in Blog & Social Media survey.

    Merry Christmas everyone, have a great 2009, and I’ll see you next year . 🙂