Branding, creativity and the importance of a good story. The Servant of Chaos blog covers social media marketing, digital and brand strategy and the art of storytelling for brand engagement.
When I was a child I was always warned to be careful of strangers ... and I remember how confusing this was. Who was a stranger? What did a stranger look like? In this research, released by Universal McCann in September 2008, we now know – strangers look incredibly like us. And the tipping point? When it comes to opinion and recommendation, we trust them more than we ever have.
The research polled 17,000 Internet users in 29 countries to discover that there is a new landscape of influence driven by:
The rise of social media
Digital friends
The proliferation of influence channels
For brands, this is transforming the marketing landscape – with a vast majority of digital, social interaction revolving around “experience”, conversations about YOUR brands are already taking place. And more importantly, we now trust the opinions of strangers almost as much as we trust people we know well. This is the stranger danger for brands. It is also why not engaging in the debate about your brand carries a high risk. Take a read and think about your leading brand:
How are you participating in the online conversation
What are your strategies for interacting with influencers
Are you organisationally prepared for the transparency required to move from conversation to action?
How are you “listening” and measuring key brand indicators in various digital channels?
We used to say that “the only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about.” But things have changed. You see, when the advertising challenge was to “cut through.” repetition was its own virtue; while in this Age of Conversation, the factors which determine marketing success are more closely related to the intangible factors of trust, reputation and social currency.
This is the first part of my latest post over at MarketingProfs. Check out the rest here
This week there has been much debate around the notion of digital identity. After all, just because someone owns a “username” or email address, it doesn’t mean that their identity can be assured.
Stephen Fry, a self-confessed gadget lover, is well known as a blogger, but his sudden appearance on Twitter saw a gold rush of a kind – with the digital network humming as word spread of his bonafide participation in the digital conversation. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking of printing and framing the confirmation email announcing my new connection to a very real celebrity. The important aspect of this, was not only how quickly it spread (after only days he is following around 5,500 people and has an almost equal number of followers), but that in the act of spreading there was an implicit validation – Stephen’s identity was confirmed by the community who propagated his participation. This has since been followed up by clever tweets that intertwine his personal, professional and geographic narrative.
Contrast this with the misguided attempt by National Australia Bank employees to generate conversation about their fledgling uBankMyFutureBank.org online service. This probably would never have garnered much attention if NAB had not already weathered one social media storm. However, in an environment where social currency is dependent upon reputation and trust vests not in the brand but in the community you serve – a second opaque excursion into the blogosphere was always going to prompt a response. Both Stephen Collins and Laurel Papworth responded, “sniffing out” the fake identity and wondering where, exactly, NAB sources its social media strategy expertise. Clearly NAB did not anticipate or even understand the viral and contagious nature of online conversation … and the way in which TRUST permeates and underwrites all our interactions.
UPDATE: Charis Palmer over at the Better Banking blog confirms that MyFutureBank.org has been PULLED and brings another viewpoint to the table. I have left a comment, but would love to hear your view as well.
So it was with some trepidation and mis-trust that the Twittersphere greeted the arrival of Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Federal Opposition (Twitter ID: @turnbullmalcolm). It was doubly confusing because we were also suddenly confronted with @malcolmturnbull (whose Twitter bio states “i is teh leaderz”).
In the first day, iMalcolm gathered a great deal of followers as the interest and contagion set in. He was, however, beyond frugal in the number of people he would, in turn, follow (day 1 score iMalcolm 443 vs the population 0). But around mid-afternoon today a change occurred, and iMalcolm began following those who had followed him. This reciprocation hit like a shockwave across the Australian Twittersphere. In response to a direct question (“can you please confirm …”) from John Johnston, the reply came: “@jjprojects it is me myself and as you can see I am still learning how it works. Cheers, Malcolm.”
While politicians in the US have welcomed the opportunities to reach, engage and activate the constituencies, it has been slow going here in Australia. In fact, the innovative approach that the Obama campaign have developed, I would argue, outstrips any efforts that have come thus far from brands or corporations. Perhaps iMalcolm has seen this potential. He has already taken on the lessons freely offered by the Twittersphere, and has a substantial web presence as you would expect. Interestingly, this extends to include a quirky (and humanising) dog blog. While iMalcolm has clearly arrived, I have a feeling we will be hearing a whole lot more from him – and don’t expect him to be disappearing any time soon. (Unlike some online bank.)
And this, just in, from Julian Cole who has already found iMalcolm hitting the Twitter back channel during question time.
*iMalcolm – a real person tweeting in the name of another. From time to time, these identities will actually coincide with reality. Not guaranteed.
I remember when Telstra’s Now We Are Talking blog launched. It made a bit of a ripple, but did not really dint my consciousness, which is surprising because I am always on the lookout for brands (especially big brands) who are digging into social media. But what I do recall was a brief visit to the site and a feeling that this “blog” was going to be just what the name suggested – a whole lot of talking and not a lot of listening.
Last week, Mike Hickinbotham (from said blog), tagged me to give my two cents on whether nowwearetaking is hitting the mark. It was a nice tactic as the previous week we had a short Twitter conversation on the topic of Gartner’s hype cycle (and yes, I am still working on a post about that) … so Twitter was used effectively to reach out and break the ice, and then the blog activated to extend and deepen the engagement and conversation. “The old one-two”, as Maxwell Smart might have said.
But for me, the old one-two in social media is about the exchange of value. It is about the easy fostering of conversation and the swift conversion of that dialogue into action. In many ways, it’s more about doing than talking, after all, actions speak louder than words. And now, at least thanks to Mike, I was curious – and wanted to see just how Australia’s largest corporate blogger was dipping into the big pond.
When I visited the site, I thought I might comment on Mike’s post. Then I noticed that before being ABLE to comment I needed to register. But this is no simple registration process … I needed to also provide my postcode as a form of identification along with some demographic data. Within seconds, I have TWO barriers in place before I can even begin to have a conversation.
Recommendation: Open up comments. Make sure that a valid email address is provided, but registration is an inhibitor to conversation (which is supposedly one of your aims).
As I stepped through the registration process, I was greeted by a link to the Terms and Conditions. And while I knew what awaited me, I just couldn’t help looking for it:
By submitting material to a Forum, you:
grant us a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable worldwide licence to use, copy, publish, publicly perform, communicate and adapt that material, and to sublicense those rights through the operation of the this site; and
agree to its public disclosure.
So not only do I have to register my details, I also have to sign over the rights to any insight I share as part of a discussion!
OK, to be honest, this does not really bother me. It is, however, an indication of the lack of “transparency” despite what seems to be good intentions on the part of the bloggers.
Recommendation: Go crazy and republish your blogs under a creative commons license. This will not only demonstrate that you GET social media and its economy of mutual attribution and participative value co-creation, it will also build you enormous and instant goodwill.
Wrap-up
Now, I am no stranger to corporate bureaucracies, to legal reviews or brand guidelines; so I have to tip my hat to Telstra’s social media team for making it this far. But, to be honest, as Cameron Reillysuggested, there is a long way to go.
There are a growing band of active Australian bloggers who also provide consulting services, strategic advice and insight as to how you can plan for, build and execute an integrated strategy with social media, trust and transparency at its heart. I am sure they would help accelerate your successes in this space (especially now that you are throwing Twitter into the mix). It’s time to slay some (corporate) sacred cows and really get the message out. Telstra has made a great start but is also faced with an almost unmatched opportunity. I’d like to see them take it.
Update: The conversation continues with Lid providing a series of tips and insights; Stephen Collins suggesting a thorough reading of the Cluetrain Manifesto and the Zappos tweetstream; and Katie Harris giving the thumbs down. Jye Smith has also chimed in.
Chris Schaumann has put together this excellent presentation on digital branding, with a particular focus on the Asia region. There are some great statistics peppered throughout, including the fact that there is only an average 5% spend on Internet advertising in Asia Pacific (Australia maxing out at 12.2%). But when you consider that 65% of all marketing spend in 2007 had NO effect on consumers and that 86% of consumers don't believe what brands say about THEMSELVES, then it starts to make sense.
Clearly, brands can no longer EFFECTIVELY represent themselves. And with 78% of consumers believing what "other consumers" say about brands, the rise of consumer generated content/comment/analysis will have an impact on the Future of Your Brand. I particularly like the way that Chris breaks down the "new marketing model" into:
Transactional marketing
Relationship marketing
Experiential marketing
But I would add a fourth element -- conversational marketing. This is the marketing that is done ON YOUR BEHALF by consumers to other consumers. And while it is much less controllable, it is certainly "authentic". Will it bring the love back? Only time will tell.
When it comes to understanding the impact of digital media on the way we live our lives, there are few who dig as deeply as Michael Wesch. This is a recording of his speech at the US Library of Congress in June. And while the presentation starts off with some impressive statistics about the number of videos uploaded to YouTube (9,232 hours per day -- 88% of which is original), the fascinating aspect of this presentation is the focus on story. In his own words:
... that is the story of the numbers and this is really a story about new forms of expression and new forms of community and new forms of identity emerging.
For the following 45 minutes or so, Michael Wesch leads us through a discussion on the way in which digital media is celebrating and connecting people in entirely new forms of shared experience. He starts with Numa Numa and his famous The Machine is Us/ing Us. Interestingly, the latter was initially launched the Wednesday before Superbowl Sunday -- and as he had quickly reached an audience of over 200 people he sent a screen shot to the head of school for his permanent record. By Saturday the audience had grown to over 1100 viewings and the video had been posted on Digg. As you probably know, this video has at current count, around 5 million views.
As an anthropologist, Michael Wesch is providing a fascinating analysis of the shifts in society and culture that are already underway. In this video he shows how user generated content + user generated filtering + user generated distribution is reinventing the way in which we create, find and share branded and unbranded material via the web. This potent mix is ignited with a final piece, which Michael calls "user generated commentary" -- ie blogs -- however, I feel this is better represented as user generated CONTEXT. When blog authors share content with their readers, they create a context into which the content becomes more accessible and digestible for their particular audience. It is this final piece which is an essential part of any digital strategy. I fully recommend setting aside an hour to watch this presentation through, however, if you have limited time, I have written my thoughts below.
About 12 minutes into the presentation, Michael turns his attention to the media. Here he talks about the media not as technology but as a system through which human relations are mediated. This is given more context by showcasing the way that remixing and remastering videos allows others to participate in a video meme (eg Charlie Bit My Finger and its 100+ responses). Clearly this is not just about claiming 15 seconds of fame. This type of participation goes to the very heart of the P-L-A-Y (P-ower, L-earning, A-dventure, Y-elp of surprise), delivering an experience that crosses the chasm that is imposed upon us by culture, geography, suburbia and even the isolating experience of TV viewing.
But the experience of this is dislocating. At 23 minutes, Michael explains "context collapse" which is what happens when we first begin to "participate". For example, think back to the first time that you wrote a blog post, think about your first comment on another's blog. By participating in this way, you release your thoughts into an environment in which you have no context. You don't know how it will be read or understood, nor where or when. You don't even necessarily "know" your reader. Now, apply this same thinking to video. You are "speaking" or "presenting" to a small webcam, not a person. Well, not yet anyway. The human interaction is delayed, mediated, spread across time and space. It takes time for "participants" to become used to this new mode of delayed being. It is, perhaps, why the easiest way to understand blogging is to participate.
At around the thirty minute point, Michael walks us through the topic of cultural inversion. This describes the tension that we (in a cultural sense) experience as participants. On the one hand we express individualism, independence and a keen commercialism while desiring community and relationships within an authentic context. YouTube, and to a certain extent, other social media, allow us to experience this tension as a deep connection with others without the responsibility that comes with close, personal relations. It strikes me that by adding a third party into this equation, for example, a "good cause" like a charity, you are able to move quickly from this state of mediated connection to "community actualisation" (thinkng a community version of maslow's hierarchy of needs).
But what happens when this is "gamed"? Michael explores YouTube's authenticity crisis about 36 minutes in, using EmoKid21Ohio and LonelyGirl15 as examples. Ten minutes later the topic of copyright is broached (any remixing is basically illegal). Using a clip from Lawrence Lessig's TED talk, the challenge is contextualised -- the culture has moved on and the law is struggling to recontextualise its own relevance:
You can't kill the instant the technology produces, we can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it, we can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again, we can only make them "pirates" ... and is that good?
We live in ... an age of prohibitions where many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law, ordinary people live life against the law ... and that realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting, and in a democracy we ought to be able to do better.
The presentation is wrapped up by video quoting bnessel1973:
Some people say that the videos we create on YouTube should be created in hopes to change the world. I have made mine to help me live in it.
Often the most effective communications are a little rough around the edges. It is the half-dashed email. It it the off-hand tweet. It is the scribbled note left on your colleague's desk.
Think about it, what do you prefer to get from your lover -- an email, an e-card or a hand written note? What gets your attention most?
When it comes to communication, marketing or what ever you want to call it, sometimes the slick, polished piece of collateral, corporate video or TVC is not what you should be aiming for. And while it does depend on who your audience is, remember that we all like to feel that we are being spoken to by a person, not a machine. After all, no matter how many times you repeat a message, nothing appears to be quite so authentic as something written, given and created by hand.
When I saw this ad the other night I laughed out loud. Audacious. Daring even. It apparently even caused outrage and complaint in the community which is a good sign of effectiveness. But would it make you buy the product? Penny Warneford, who is helping Kolotex with the campaign (or perhaps managing the crisis it has created) said, "The advertising is the result of extensive research which is right on target". It seems to me that she is right. And we have come a long way since the ads with the blue dye.
Every medium has a frame. This can be physical like the hard edges of a TV screen or a computer monitor (or even the edges of a piece of paper), or it can be a "construct" -- a series of written and unwritten rules which we all follow in order to create meaning. Sometimes playing with or adjusting this frame can create surprise -- jolting us out of the passive stupor which surrounds our media consumption. I remember Moonlighting used direct to camera conversation as a way to "break the frame", but there are many other approaches and techniques that can be applied to film, video, TV, print, outdoor and even digital. Whichever media you are working in, there are rules to use and rules to abuse -- and plenty of creative space in-between.
But for me, the best creative work reaches THROUGH the frame in which it is created and connects us with a story. A powerful narrative has a force and impact which cannot be easily ignored. For digital work, this often involves interaction or an immersive approach to storytelling, while TV needs to capture our fleeting attention (ie stop us from walking away) and draw us into a story that DEMANDS to be told.
This TVC for the Victorian Traffic Accidents Commission is a great example. There are not single stories here, but a quiet cacophany of stories.
The plain, everyday footage and locales, the emptiness of the scenes conveys the tragic absence of life. The still-grieving (ever grieving) parents with photos is reminiscent of Chile's mothers of the disappeared, and the haunting music (Angie Hart's cover of The Cure's Pictures of You) all combine to remind us of the consequences of our actions as well as our need TO act.
Oh, and as Jayne points out, these people are not actors. They are the real people who have lost loved ones in accidents. Hope you have a box of tissues.
I have been ruminating on the linkage between trust and participation over the last couple of days ... particularly in light of Mario's post on the Fifth P of Marketing -- participation ... and trying to piece together a sense of where this is all heading. As you have all probably experienced, there is a converging of technologies and processes -- the distinctions between work/life, professional/private, author/collaborate are collapsing before our very eyes. Meanwhile, the institutions that we have, in the past, trusted (from banks to governments) are coming under fire and are heaving under the stresses of our cynical consumerist glare. Even the darlings of our new connected universe, Google, are feeling this strain.
Where once we turned to Google to sort through the dross of the ever-expanding Internet, we now turn to our personal networks. The difference now, however, is that our personal networks are dispersed across geographies, timezones and languages. We use tools and sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and even Twitter to mine specific answers to our global and local needs. Robert Scoble calls this "social graphing" -- take a look at the second video here.
One of the ideas that interested me most in this concept was the linkage between how social networking activates and validates inter- and intra-community trust. Basically, this means that I am more likely to make a decision based on feedback or information garnered from my network of trusted advisors. For example, I am more likely to try Facebook if all my friends are using it -- even the stalwart David Armano has finally capitulated ;)
From a brand and marketing point of view, these networks are strategically important ... but as Robert Scoble points out, they are, thus far, impervious to search engine optimisation. This means that ONLY those brands that are ACTIVE in social media will have any chance of reaching and activating these networks. In short -- brands need to participate ... for only through participation can they DEMONSTRATE the qualities that will lead to trust. So if you are asked "should my company be blogging"? The answer should be clear.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=caffe5f3-ff23-48ae-bcfc-c9be19064a17)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bb6caae9-d596-4b13-b942-8f959865a4b1)
Recent Comments