Can you control the message in social media?
Trevor Cook is someone I've been following for some time, because of his insights in media and PR. He wrote this (altogether good) article. There was just one quote that got me thinking:
Business needs to keep perspective on social media – Corporate Engagement
The Obama campaign is the current gold standard of this approach – they controlled message but they allowed people a great deal of lattitude in the way they helped promote that message
I've read it a few times now, and I'm not sure.
Did the Obama campaign control message? They certainly created it, but did they really "control" it allowing people "lattitude" in the way they helped promote it?
I don't think so. I think the reason it is the "gold standard" is because they created the kind of messages people wanted to share and promote, and then created highly targeted tools and activities to enable these messages to be spread.
In fact, had they made any attempt to control the message (apart from correcting people when they misrepresented the message), the whole thing would have failed.
What do you think? Did I miss something here?
“My 6 year old son could have done that”
Anyone in marketing dealing with branding has heard that one before. About a logo design. About a tag line.
Most of the time, it is very hard to argue the point. When you look at the final product of a logo design, or when you read a final tag line, it is probably really simple. Doesn't look hard to do. But that's measuring the wrong thing. It's not about how hard it is to create something, but how strong it communicates the desired brand positioning.
For example. Kraft thought it was a fun idea to engage their customers in naming a new product. They put little jars with Vegemite flavoured cheese spread and decided to crowd source the name for the new product. "Name Me" the little jars of spread shouted off the shelves. So that was the brief. "Name Me".
The result was that thousands sent in their ideas, and the good people at Kraft, (custodians of one of the most iconic brands in Australia, Vegemite) chose one that sounded like something their target audience might like. iSpread 2.0. I won't go into all the reasons why this was a terrible choice, there is plenty of commentary from all sorts of media (social and otherwise) on that. In fact, the Wall Street Journal even reported the fact that the company has decided to pull the name and think of a new one.
What I am more interested in is how they got there. The reason you don't let your 6 year old son design a logo (or a product name) is that he is not likely to be clear on what you're trying to communicate, how you are trying to position the product. That is the difficulty in design and good branding; how to communicate an idea in the simplest, most powerful way.
The sort of thoughts you expect to go through someones mind naming a product (especially for an iconic brand) are:
Without that, how could either the people creating the name, or the people choosing the name know if it was good, bad or indifferent?
It is the difference between advertising thinking and brand positioning, and I think Al Ries should have a field day with this one, in one of his contributions on Branding Strategy Insider.
Get your customers involved is fun, but don't think that you can take a short cut to the hard work of positioning a product.
Brand Australia – trying to be all things to all people
$20 Million. That's what's up for grabs to design the next "branding" campaign for Australia. The trade minister, Simon Crean told us that it needs to position us as a place to live, a place to invest, a place to study, a place that is more than just natural beauty. (pic by Ernieski)
First this:SIMON CREAN: Building brand Australia has an unashamedly commercial focus which will help promote Australia as a great place to live, a great country in which to do business, a great place to invest. Building brand Australia is also about Australia reaching out to the world; it's another sign that we're not turning inwards, going down the path of mandatory buy Australia campaigns.
Than this: "Australian trade minister Simon Crean announced a $20 million plan today as a means to 're-brand' Australia with a new tourism tagline and logo to reboost diminishing interest in the country as a tourist destination"
He admires the New Zealand campaign: "100% Natural". The CEO of the Tourism and Transport Forum is a little cautious (and rightfully so) about what a new brand might look like and realistically achieve. He says:
We often look to the great success of 100 per cent Pure New Zealand, though New Zealand in a way is almost mono-destinational and mono-product. Everything can be encapsulated in that.
Exactly. They are promoting NZ as a tourist destination. That's it. And that's the problem with this brief, IMHO.
You can't be all things to all people. What do we want to do? Appeal to tourists? They don't give a rip about the investment opportunity. Do we want to appeal to investors? Why would they care that this is a great place to study? Or fish? Or go to the beach?
You want to do it right? Three audiences. Three dreams, three campaigns. Not one. With that many spin doctors around, is there no one to help the politicians with this?
The storyline and Chinese whispers
Articulating why someone should choose you or your product over someone else’s is hard.
We have an endless array of tools to distribute the story, but often the weakness is not where we tell the story, but how well we tell it. Unless you run a pure online business, (where you get to control the message at least to the point where others start to talk about you) you probably have people in your employ to tell the story. Either on the telephone or in person, someone is selling your products or services for you, and telling the story.
The sales force are your story tellers - Individuals, who often work largely autonomously, often hired because they are “hunters”; people with the ability to go out there and with little more than their own drive and skills open doors and meet quota. Their individualism, and ability to get things done with limited support is celebrated.
And there is the dilemma. Managers sweat over the precise wording of the value proposition, positioning the brand away from the competitors, highlighting their leadership in their niche. They carefully craft language to connect with the audience.
Then it is handed over to the sales team, and a game of Chinese whispers starts. The story is often interpreted in as many different ways as there are sales people.
So the questions is does it matter, and if it does, what can you do about it?
Does it matter? - I think it does. In most markets today, differentiation is hard enough to achieve. So whatever that differentiation is, articulating the story effectively can be the difference between success and failure. How complete is the story told, how passionately, how it is made relevant to the customer.
What can you do about it? – make sure there is broad agreement that the story is the best it can be. If there are sales people who don’t buy in to it, deal with it in one way or another. If it is because your story doesn’t stack up, adjust. If it is because someone can’t or won’t get on board, you’ve got another problem. It’s in everyone’s interest to help sales people tell the story in the best possible way. An investment in ongoing, two way communication with the front line will not only help you get the story out, it will also give you the feedback you need to adjust when the market changes.
Why not use the same tools you might use externally, (like the web, video, podcasts) to engage your sales team. If you invest the time to listen, you also have the right to expect people to pay attention when you ask something in return.
In the end, customers will determine what your brand is, and they will determine whether your story stands up. But amplifying your story consistently will have an impact. What else would you do, or have you done?
Food for thought – differentiating in a commodity market
A quick story about fresh food and little Aussie battlers.
In Australia the groceries business is largely controlled by two players, Coles and Woolworths. There are many things wrong with that. For example, you can imagine the negotiating power these guys wield over their suppliers. Or their motivation to give you the best products possible.
As a consumer, I care mostly about the quality of what I buy and the price I pay for that quality. Woolworth and Coles are falling over themselves to tell me that they are fresh food people (just like me, the recently told me in an ad). But I don't see it.
Then we discovered (through word of mouth) that there is a crowd called Aussie Farmers Direct, who decided that there may just be an alternative to dancing to the tunes of the big boys. 
They believed that there was room in the market for an old fashioned milkman, who delivers not only milk but juice, bread and fresh vegetables. We've started using this service and now get a weekly delivery of all the stuff that you need to get fresh. The only proviso is that they select the fruit and veg that go into the box, but if you like variety, that's ok. At pretty much the same price as the supermarket, but at superior quality.
Who would have thought that while they are taking the last remaining bit of service out of the supermarkets (they now want you to scan your own stuff), there is a good business in home delivering high quality produce?
So what are the magic marketing ingredients?
Good model – cut out the middle man, direct to the consumer
Good positioning - "Helping the Australian farmer" - "The Milkman is back"
Differentiated offering – home delivery, no more lugging the heaviest part of your groceries
Quality – no more good-looking but crappy tasting fruit and veg..
Word of mouth promotion – as a result of all of the above
Who says you can't differentiate in a commodity market?
Gordon Ramsay’s Marketing Nightmare
Not sure if you watch Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmare, (or if it is broadcast in your part of the world) but I’m a little hooked. There is plenty not to like about the show, in particular his tendency to humiliate people to get a point across. What there is to like is that every episode is a marketing and branding case study.
Every episode starts with an audit - he assesses the look of the place as he walks in and sits down, reviews the menu and has a meal in the place. He reviews the service and the management.
Nine times out of ten the mistakes are the same.
The quality of food is often poor; no care, no passion. There is no positioning; the menu is confused or bland. The service delivery is chaotic. But one thing stands out: they see the world through their own rather than their customers' eyes. They live in a vacuum.
The next thing he does is walk the local streets. He checks out the competition, looking for a niche, chats to people in the street to find out what the restaurants’ brand reputation is. He talks to local suppliers and generally gets a feel for the specific environment he is in.
So he looks at the restaurant through the eyes of the customers. Brand: “The company seen through the eyes of the customer”. Mostly, he comes back with an idea of how to position the restaurant; a signature dish or direction for the menu that will uniquely position the restaurant. Because he knows his environment he positions away from competitors and ensures that the positioning is relevant to the target market: If he is on the coast it’s about fresh fish, if it is in the heart of the US it is about steak.
He does a local launch promotion with only one purpose; generate word of mouth. He doesn’t start promoting before the house is (more or less) in order though. Now I’ve never eaten in Gordon’s restaurant and although it makes great television, I don’t like his style. But he truly understands marketing and branding.
Does digital marketing work for professional services firms?
Professional services firms should in theory be one of the most prolific users of the internet and digital media. Their business is about knowledge, ideas and relationships; perfect.
From my observations, they lag behind as an industry online, instead of leading the pack. I asked David Maister, one of the leading international business strategist focused on professional services what he thinks the role of digital marketing is in this industry, and he wrote a blog post that received a great response.
In the post, he notes although the opportunity to demonstrate expertise is there, he wonders how much hard evidence there is that it works for prof services, firms: "I’m not sure how much hard evidence there really is about the benefits of the web in marketing professional services" and; "It’s still early days for blogging, podcasting and videocasting, but I’d have to guess that, for most professional service firms, these are not high return activities – again, because I’m not sure that the “high-level” buyers are listening and watching."
After reading the comments from people who are in the industry and who consult on this topic (like Michelle Golden and James Cherkoff), I had a few thought about this.
Top tier firms vs mid tier and small business
Firstly, I asked an incomplete question. A small business local accountant is a completely different beast from a top tier, multi-billion dollar turn over business and their objectives will be different. For example, where everyone knows the top tier brands, one of the key objectives of small brands is simply getting on the radar of potential clients.
David wonders if the "high level" buyers are listening and watching online. He's probably right, but I think the real opportunity is in that the traditional media increasingly sources their ideas and content online. What if Bill D. Green CEO of Accenture wrote a blog? Would Wall Street Journal editors keep an eye out? You bet. David Meerman Scott's book, The New Rules of Marketing and PR offers some wonderful ideas about how to drive PR using the web.
Budget vs time
David Maister wonders how much of their budget he would advise his customers to dedicate. I think it is more about time than money. For most firms this is a greater constraint than money. Although the cost of distribution of ideas is cheap online, capturing and developing the sort of content that clients want to read is time consuming.
Marketing for talent
For many services firms, the "war for talent" may be a greater incentive to market online than anything else. Now, this audience will go online to listen and look and I know of many companies who spend most of their marketing budget on getting talent, rather than clients.
Opportunities
One of the key issues with professional services brands is that what is offered is really not that differentiated. The differentiation needs to be about how they do things; how their people are more accessible, more interested, more capable. How do you break down the barriers?
A nice example is Clayton Utz, a local Australian law firm using video in a very simple but effective way; two partners having a discussion about a specific topic of expertise. Apart from meeting these guys in person, there is nothing that will get me closer at a human, emotional level than watching them on video. It is exactly at this human, emotional level that business is won and lost when all else is equal.
Although the point David Maister makes about "proof that it works" is valid, if implemented properly, there is probably more metrics around online activity than say, sponsoring a yacht for a few million a year. To some extent it is also a chicken and egg question; if you don't invest in digital marketing you're probably not tracking it's performance either.
Now, where are the prof services firms with the hard facts?
PS: KPMG outperformed everyone this year and turned over $US 19 Billion. Judging by their website, their digital effort wasn't the one that delivered that growth:)
With thanks to David Maister for starting this discussion.
The Brand Gap – must see slideshow
Sometimes other people tell the story so well, you just get out of the way.
Click through to this simple, powerful presentation.
“Director, Differentiation Strategy” is a title at Boeing
Randy Baseler, CEO of Boeing and noted CEO blogger writes: "My colleague Blake Emery, who has the unique title of Director, Differentiation Strategy..."
What a great idea. A person whose sole focus is to differentiate the brand, the products and the services from competitors. It's explicit, it's on the agenda. I understand that on the average payroll there may not be room for a "Director of Differentiation" but there is still something really valuable in the idea.
Maybe rather than having a Director of Differentiation, you could have a loose team of people consisting of customer service, sales, product, services, operations, finance and marketing.
Marketing might take the initiative, but you rotate the chair between the participants to ensure everyone is engaged and committed. The agenda is clear from the start: "what can we do, what do we need to do, to improve our differentiation."
Many marketing thinkers now believe that marketing success in the future will rely more on "baking in" the interest, i.e. doing things that are of interest to your customers. (see Mark Earls post here and my follow up here)
In my post I wondered aloud about how to get this type of new thinking implemented under the pressure of delivering day-to-day results. If you believe that this is the way of the future for marketing and branding, then maybe a Differentiation Task Force is a great first step.
Boom! Brand reputation damaged.
We have less than 4% unemployment in Australia. People are screaming for good technicians. The last two web projects I worked on were almost completely driven by the client's recruitment needs.
Now imagine you are the company in the search result below. Potential customer or employee searches for your brand. The first entry is a company with the same name, the second is you, and the third is someone telling the whole world not to work for you.
I'm not saying it is fair. I'm not saying it is right. But it is the reality.
If I was in HR, Sales or Marketing for this company, I would make sure that I engaged in that conversation very quickly.
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.