Tag: Pepsi

  • Social Shops

    One of the trends I think will catch on in the next few years is social commerce, despite the buzz. 🙂 Though word-of-mouth has always been around, newer technologies provide scope for newer manifestations. At this point, social commerce is seen as many things – from f-commerce to group buying/daily deals to virtual merchandise to social + affiliate marketing to social media reviews to shop-together applications, and so on. In essence, any usage of social platforms/applications/media for commerce, and  brands are using/creating these basis their objectives and understanding of the space.

    The buzz has been there for quite a while now. To take a few recent examples, JWT’s 100 things to watch in 2011 had at least a couple of obvious manifestations – F-commerce (35), Group Manipulated Pricing (4) and more in terms of enablers and related items. (come to that in a bit) Trendwatching’s May 2011 trend is The F-Factor – “that’s F for friends, fans, followers who influence consumers’ purchasing decisions in ever more sophisticated ways”, in which they classify this further into discovery, rating, feedback, together, and ‘me’, the last one about curation itself becoming a product/service.

    There are several technologies that will aid this trend in various capacities. Again, to refer to JWT’s deck everything from Automated Checkins (6) to Micro Businesses (51) NFC (56) to Personal Taste Graphs (67) to Tap To Pay (88) can play a direct or indirect part. Add to this increasing smartphone penetration and its impact on purchasing behaviour (check out a study by Google) and interesting services like Localmind, which uses 4sq check ins and location to help users engage in Q&A, or LocalResponse, that uses tweets and check-in data to create a marketing platform for brands to target consumers in real time. and this is sure to be an interesting space with plenty of $$ involved.

    That (obviously) explains why the usual suspects are making strides – Facebook with its check-in deals and Social deals and more importantly increasing the scope and penetration of Connect, Open Graph, Instant Personalisation (though), Google with its Latitude, Offers, expansion of Product Search to more countries (via) and even its fashion shop, Amazon with its new membership-only fashion sales site and so on.

    But more than these services, the applications that interest me are from the ‘real’ products that I come across. Levi’s remains one of my favourites. And the one that excited me much was Pepsi’s Social Vending Machine. It allows a user to buy a drink for your friend and add a personal video message while at it. After you provide the friend’s name and number, he receives a text message with a code which he can redeem at the nearest vending machine and watch that video you made. (via) Probably a gawky start, some would say, but think of the potential applications.

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJaEVEoEETA

    It’s not that there won’t be challenges – privacy is the obvious one. Brands will also have to be careful about their natural tendency for broadcasting and aim to be relevant in time and other contexts. They will also have to integrate offline and online well. But despite these and more that might crop up, I think this will be fun with its synergy with Social CRM and its perspective on the answer to that omnipresent social media ROI question. 🙂

    Bonus read: Paul Adams on How your customers’ social circles influence what they buy, what they do and where they go

    until next time, social bill sharing? 😉

    PS: Interestingly, Coke had a friendship machine of its own too

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj3QLLTFDX8

  • Plead Blue

    <context> I missed the Twitter debate, but it was still interesting to see the two perspectives shared by Karthik and L.Bhat on Nike’s ‘Bleed Blue’ campaign. Bhat’s initial post was a good summing up of the campaign, and what made it work. Karthik’s contention was that Nike did not deserve credit primarily because it was “tightly associated with the team’s performance” – an external occurrence. There were other reasons too, but I gathered that this was the crux of it. The contrasting example was Pepsi’s Hoo Haa – Blue Billion effort during the 2006 Champions Trophy. In a second post, Bhat also acknowledged a correlation (between the campaign’s and India’s success) and rightly (IMO) stated that the campaign’s intent centred around ‘garnering support for Team India….’ and ‘portraying a positive, confident attitude about Team India…’ Also, as he points out, it stayed away from any ‘player superhero’ association or a ‘we will win the cup’ stance. </context>

    This debate was also interesting from the perspective of what I wrote last week – brand identity and real time. But before we get there, my 2 cents on the debate. I would also credit Nike for the same reasons Bhat stated – strategy, product integration and ease of participation (execution). That is what separates it from say a ‘Pallu scoop’, which is fun and pure recall, or a ‘Get Idea’, which still hasn’t given me an idea of how it’s keeping cricket clean.  [yes, they aren’t apples, but they were the other hugely visible campaigns]

    Big ticket result-based events (including movies, which Karthik has mentioned) is a risk-reward game because there really isn’t any data that allows you to place sure-shot bets. But the way I see it, you can place a successful bet, and still not gain enough mileage (bad erm, ideas, bad execution etc). Nike got it right, and there was some hard work involved.

    Come to think of it, I wonder if there’s any other approach Nike could’ve taken, especially since they were the official apparel sponsors. Look at the competition – Adidas had a Tendulkar ad and Reebok had nothing. It was a ‘once in 4 years’ opportunity and they seized it. India winning the cup was a key factor in the campaign’s success, but not the only one. Also, I don’t know if they had a back up plan – a “we’ll be back in 2015”, “thank you for giving it your best shot”, “bled to death”. Ok, not the last one, but you get the idea. Maybe they did and would’ve come out smelling like roses anyway. In any case, the efficacy of the campaign is probably best decided after it ends. In this case, it made Nike the buzz brand with other heavyweights in the fray, including the mighty Zoozoos. (Loved them though)

    Meanwhile, by design or not, Nike’s approach was also quite a “Just Do it” one. (hindsight/retrofit) From the last post’s perspective, I wonder how much/whether that identity played a part in the design and success of the campaign. But on big events, celebrity endorsements etc, going forward, real time management of campaigns will increasingly become a requirement, thanks to the instant feedback tools that exist. Perhaps brands should formulate ‘what if scenarios’ and corresponding approaches when they plan large scale campaigns, especially when it’s linked to events that don’t offer much support in the form of data. The other way is to scale after the relevant data comes in, but that would involve quite an execution effort.

    until next time, blue positive 🙂

    PS: Nike, next time, stadium checkins and a Bleed Blue 4sq badge too please 🙂

  • 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

  • Banking on data

    There was an article recently at PSFK, which, in addition to the impending data explosion, also talks of the need for brands to invest in technology to mine, analyse and identify changing consumer needs and opportunities. Though probably, at a later stage, the automatic ‘sensors’ mentioned in the article would beat the self-expression media services as the largest data source, at this stage, the latter seem to be the biggest contributors.

    So what is the data that’s getting generated? As social networks evolve, the role that they play in the individual’s life is also evolving. While flow of information, and communication seem to find social networks as natural conduits, the networks are also now sources of entertainment for many. (study by Edelman) What does this entail for brands, their communication and the content they generate?

    Amidst the social network revolution, brands have been trying hard to eke out a place for themselves – to slide in easily into the conversations, and lives of individual users. Some have been successful, and some have not, the latter mostly when they try to use these as distribution channels for other media content alone. I read a few days back that the two official sponsors for the World Cup – Adidas and Coke, had been trumped by their competitors – Nike, and Pepsi, as far as WOM goes. Not surprising, both tell excellent stories. It makes us feel.

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLG6jh23yE

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQmu48sZohc

    There’s this excellent presentation by Rory Sutherland about intangible, and perceived value that brands create. A bit dated, but I happened to see it recently. It made me think about Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and the tangibility of various levels.

    As civilisation advances and scarcities and abundance are rapidly traded, and as brands progress, don’t the lower levels of Maslow’s needs hierarchy become hygiene? So, would users prefer brands that help them in the esteem and self actualisation areas? It perhaps might be an example of ‘seeing the subtext you want to see’, but the Nike ad – ‘Write the Future’ seemed to be all about self actualisation and the Pepsi’s ‘Oh Africa’ seemed to be all about an ever-changing crowd that seems to be impossible to keep pace with. To quote Clay Shirky, “The category of ‘consumer’ is now a temporary behavior rather than a permanent identity.”

    Which brings me back to the data explosion. The challenge, I guess, is an old one. Finding motivations, sensing patterns out of all the data to understand why we ‘Like’, why we ‘share’, and so on, and then give us a value proposition. With rapidly evolving technologies, even the value needs to adapt much faster than before, because if the brand is late, there’ll be another that delivers. But then again, at higher need levels, when the individuality/uniqueness quotient increases, will the manifestation of needs show a collective pattern? Or will the individual’s behaviour pattern become more important for brands? Multiple data sets, multiple patterns, multiple challenges. Interesting times indeed 🙂

    Meanwhile, here’s one closer home. (via Gaurav) A very interesting project by Tithiya Sharma – The 100 Heroes Project. I’m sure it’ll be a wonderful story and if I were an airline brand or even a MakeMyTrip/Cleartrip or anything to do with travel, I’d take a look at the project.

    until next time, tripping on data

  • PR – Public Relationship

    The control a brand has, or rather the lack of it, was evident in two examples I saw recently. Both became viral, one at a very small level, and the other, a huge global one. You must’ve guessed the second one easily enough. Meanwhile, the first was ‘Bros Icing Bros‘ and linked to the Smirnoff brand, unofficially. You can read the details here. The way the game worked – “a person presents a friend (err, “bro”) with a Smirnoff Ice which they must then and there – regardless of time, location or context – take on bended knee and chug the entire bottle. The exception is if that friend himself (or herself) is carrying a Smirnoff Ice – in that case, the original presenter must chug both “Ices””  A case of user generated brand buzz, which perhaps did good for the product and was relatively non-detrimental to the brand.

    And there’s the first example, which is easily becoming THE example now, for bad PR. BP – if the spill wasn’t bad enough, there was the spillage – the fake PR account – advice on what/why BP should or should not do with it, the tweet billboards, an old (fake) ad, the ironic sign, the ghastly, ghastly images, the user created logos, a coffee parody, and the post from the man who created BPGlobalPR. BP’s losses as a brand (intangible?) is much more than the real $costs that have been speculated. Meanwhile, it has finally reached out to the @BPGlobalPR account. (While on the topic, do check out Rob Cottingham’s excellent take on the subject)

    The only commonality I’m looking at is the user generated content (or discontent). I don’t think this is an area which can be gamed easily. Sure, you can try to manipulate events and people, and search engines, try some good old PR, but there are no guarantees that it won’t boomerang. And I think it holds true across the spectrum – the two cases are polar opposites in terms of magnitude of the event, what the crowd did to it, and what the brand tried to do.

    Deviating a bit. I read “Arundhati Roy on ‘War of People‘”, where she took the scope of the Naxal issue into corporate boardrooms, and was immediately reminded of Umair Haque’s latest post titled “Ethical Capital is Capitalism’s new cornerstone“. He defines Ethical capital as “the stock of techniques, tools, and practices not just for creating value, but for defining and refining values, that an economy possesses”, and CSR, social investment, social entrepreneurship etc as the baby steps towards building it. But the corporate world still doesn’t understand the rewiring, as he himself notes. And here’s where we loop back, I don’t think this building of ethical capital can be gamed either.

    I can spot an increasing number of efforts – Pepsi’s Refresh Project, their efforts for production sustainability, Nokia’s eco profile for new products, their bicycle charger kit, to name a few. While the cynic in me sometimes disses official CSR, I realise its perhaps a level that has to be crossed before we reach out for bigger things. I also see efforts from the consumer side  –  CarrotMob (via Surekha)

    I see all of this as a trend where users are linking the brands they use, and their consumption, to the larger context of their lives and the even larger context of the world they inhabit, and the culture they consume and create. The ‘badges’ have changed, they’d like to associate themselves with brands that accommodate or at least work towards these badges.  In the foreseeable future, I think that brands which understand this will not only align more people on their side, but also have inherent features and processes which would allow them to be transparent, reduce these costly mistakes, and admit to their mistakes without the PR approaches that are drawing flak now.

    until next time, PR pressure?