A curated collection of inspiring, thought provoking or just great content on the subject of marketing, design and technology via (and sometimes by) Mattias Kindell
A curated collection of inspiring, thought provoking or just great content on the subject of marketing, design and technology via (and sometimes by) Mattias Kindell
The discussion has been long lived and still thrive… quite a bit of interesting stories floating around out there in the cloud. Thought I share some I find interesting and start an new series on the evolution of the internet, split into different focus… I’ll start with the social side (media, network etc.). If you have more, which I have no doubt, please share in the comments.
Keynote: Neville Hobson on Achieving measurable business results with social media
“Against a backdrop of changing behaviors in society and shifting climates of trust in the workplace, Neville Hobson illustrates what some organizations are doing with social media and how they are achieving measurable business results.”
Some interesting stuff in there with references to “the other” big social networks.
Presentation on SlideShare
“Mediebyråns roll när medielandskapet förändras”
Fredrik Svensson, Creative Director at Starcom, speakes about the changing landscape for media companies and where social media plays a big part. It is all about a good idea, good collaboration between agencies/disciples, to involve the consumer and to see social media as a partner. Some good cases form Svenskafans.com, Guitar Hero and Wesec.com among other… and its in Swedish…
Trendspaning: Det är inte framtid. Det händer nu.
Det händer otroligt mycket i de digitala medierna just nu och 2008 kommer sannolikt bli ett år som kommer att kommas ihåg. Annika Lidne från Lidne Inc. guidar genom några av de större trenderna och mer populära tjänsterna och företeelserna.
Presentation on SlideShare
Interessting small cut on contact points in the digital/socail space. Form the blog of Björn Falkevik.
Social Media in Plain English
Just read this article – 5 Marketing Principles Brands Should Embrace in 2010 – on adweek, it touches on what need to change in this new channel intensive landscape. In summery from my point of view:
The product is the marketing, the marketing is the product – It is about creating value that real people want to pay for… Or as Frank Striefler puts it “create better realities”. (product = product or service or anything of value that sells)
Use design as a strategic resource – it not just about look (even if very important and effective) it is about the way we go about reaching innovation. Design thinking as a concept is taking hold and proving to be a effective tool when solving the problem of innovation and business success.
Lead with the brand – it is not enough with a great product that your consumers love, it need to be lead by the brand. A credible carrier, a strong partner, a friend to talk about and interact with. Here values and transparency is key to supplement the product. This is a very good one to remember, in this cluttered landscape you need to have a strong brand and a valuable product.
Shifting form campaign to all the time – this is an effect of how we now consume, all the time. So it would be quite stupid to just communicate once in a while and ignore the rest. Consistency/quality/efficiency in all touch points with value and conversation. “…a brand must build long-term platforms to become an indispensable part of people’s daily lives by providing continued entertainment and utility. Brands can’t afford to go dark any more. Instead, stimulate brand conversations with more initiatives, more often. Just like people, brands are a sum of their experience…”
Say something interesting that people want to talk about – can be enough with the product but most likely you have to also say something. “In a world where it’s more important what people say about your brand than what brands say about themselves, give people something to talk about.”
Create value with your product and brand, be transparent and honest, be creative, and the success will follow…
Just found these wise words on Paul Isakson’s blog:
Quit trying to “join the conversation.”
Stop trying to be everyone’s friend.
Don’t shove your marketing messages at people.
Just listen to what people are saying about your product or service and apply what you learn to making it better.
The same goes for your marketing.
Make it worth talking about.
Dito, that is all I can say.
Or just drink this 😉
Just spent the morning at the SIME VIP breakfast where Forrester‘s Jaap
Favier (apparently a rocket scientist) held a very interesting
presentation on the subject “marketing in a recession”. Quite trimly
subject but as Jaap being a self stated optimized approached it as an
opportunity rather then a problem. Can’t not but agree with this angel.
He continued talking about the 4 basic needs of humans – uniqueness, variety, comfort and connect
– and the shift of customers focus of these in a economic downturn. U-V
> C-C and tided that in to how smart marketers need to shift
there approach to align with customers expectations. This being 30%,
since 70% is planning to stick to U-V, hrm I sometime wonder…
Meaning moving form one way to “open” way communication. Traditional to
social to build brand. Brought out one of the greatest analogy I have
heard in a while – open a bar (comfort and social aspects of
your friends). He gave an illustrative case from P&G’s Ivory soap
(the soap that float) from the last rescission. Touched on that one
need to focus on current business now, build C-C, and then when
things get better start attracting new business. Build loyalty through
connection. Again, agree and I think he touched on some very relevant
approaches for today’s marketers. Another guy how preach the same is
Seth Godin (not a rocket scientist but still), slightly
different angel and talk a lot about tribes now a days.
I just have one thing that I find being a hiding factor when trying to
go social, even if the company in question understands the benefits.
Resources and time needed to manage and make the bar live… To have a
successful bar you can not just pore the first drink and then have the
bar tender leave… you have to constantly pore new drinks. This seem
to be some built in understanding that you do this once and the you
can come back next quarter or even year. I suspect it has something to
do with the old media approach. Either way seem to be true for both big
international companies as well as smaller local. Is this just me? any thoughts out there to approach this?
All in all it was a great breakfast presentation and would recommend to
catch this guy at some marketing event in Europe or become a Forrester
client and you might get a visit.
If you are at SIME tomorrow, drop me a line or two and let’s have a coffee…
From the Seth blog, a lazy re-post of a great summary… read it here or visit the original… don’t matter just make sure to read it…
“Stories really matter. More than a billion dollars spent, two ‘products’ that have very different features, and yet, when people look back at the election they will remember mavericky winking. You can say that’s trivial. I’ll say that it’s human nature. Your product doesn’t have features that are more important than the ‘features’ being discussed in this election, yet, like most marketers, you’re obsessed with them. Forget it. The story is what people respond to.
Mainstream media isn’t powerful because we have no other choices (see below). It’s powerful because they’re still really good at writing and spreading stories, stories we listen to and stories we believe.
TV is over. If people are interested, they’ll watch. On their time (or their boss’s time). They’ll watch online, and spread the idea. You can’t email a TV commercial to a friend, but you can definitely spread a YouTube video. The cycle of ads got shorter and shorter, and the most important ads were made for the web, not for TV. Your challenge isn’t to scrape up enough money to buy TV time. Your challenge is to make video interesting enough that we’ll choose to watch it and choose to share it.
Permission matters (though selfish marketers still burn it). The Republican party has a long tradition of smart direct mail tactics. Over the years, they’ve used them to aggressively outfundraise and outcampaign the Democrats. In this election cycle, smart marketers at the Obama campaign toned down the spam and turned up the permission. They worked relentlessly to build a list, and they took care of the list. They used metrics to track open rates and (at least until the end) appeared to avoid burning out the list with constant fundraising. Anticipated, personal and relevant messages will always outperform spam. Regardless of how it is delivered.
Marketing is tribal. This one, for obvious reasons, fascinated me this cycle.
Karl Rove and others before him were known for cultivating the ‘base’. This was shorthand for a tribe of people with shared interests and vision (it included a number of conservatives and evangelicals). George W. Bush was able to get elected twice by embracing the base, by connecting them, by being one of them.
John McCain had a dilemma. He didn’t particularly like the base nor did they like him. His initial strategy was not to lead this existing tribe, but to weave a new tribe. The idea was that independents and some Democrats, together with the traditional pre-Reagan core of the Republican party, would weave together a new centrist base.
Barack Obama also had a challenge. He knew that the traditional base for Democratic candidates wouldn’t be sufficient to get him elected (it had failed John Kerry). So he too set out to weave a new tribe, a tribe that included progressives, the center, younger religious voters, weary veterans, internationalists, Nobel prize winners, black voters and others.
Building a new tribe (in marketing and in politics) is time consuming and risky and expensive. Both set out to do this.
Then, McCain made a momentous decision. He chose Sarah Palin, and did it for one huge reason: to embrace the Rove/Bush ‘base’. To lead a tribe that was already there, but not yet his. He was hoping for a side effect, which was to attract Hillary Clinton’s tribe, one that in that moment, was also leaderless.
Seen through the lens of tribes and marketing, this is a fascinating and risky event. Are people willing to suspend disbelief or suspicion and embrace a leader in order to maintain the energy of their tribe?
If it had worked, it would have been a master stroke. He would have solidified his base, grabbed key constituencies of Clinton supporters in swing states and wooed the center as well. Three tribes in one pick.
In McCain’s case, it failed. His choice cost him the economically-concerned middle (which went to Obama’s carefully woven tribe). And it clearly cost him the mostly female Clinton tribe. Yes, he energized the conservative base, but he lost the election. If he had chosen Mike Huckabee, one could wonder what would have happened. Would this less polarizing figure been able to collect a bigger tribe for him?
This is a real question for every marketer with an idea to sell. Do you find an existing tribe (Harley drivers, Manolo shoe buyers, frequent high-end restaurant diners) and try to co-opt them? Or do you try the more expensive and risky effort of building a brand new tribe? The good news is that if you succeed, you get a lot for your efforts. The bad news is that you’re likely to fail.
Motivating the committed outperforms persuading the uncommitted. The unheralded success factor of Obama’s campaign is the get out the vote effort. Every marketer can learn from this. It’s easier (far easier) to motivate the slightly motivated than it is to argue with those that either ignore you or are predisposed to not like you.
Attack ads don’t always work. There’s a reason most product marketers don’t use attack ads. All they do is suppress sales of your opponent, they don’t help you. Since TV ads began, voter turnout has progressively decreased. That’s because the goal of attack ads is to keep your opponent’s voters from showing up. Both sides work to whittle down the other. In a winner-take-all game like a political election, this strategy is fine if it works.
So why didn’t the ads work this time?
The tribe that Obama built identified with him. Attacking him was like attacking them. They took it personally, and their outrage led to more donations and bigger turnout. This is the lucky situation Apple finds itself in as well. Attacking an Apple product is like attacking an Apple user.
We get what we deserve. The lesson that society should take away about all marketing is a simple one. When you buy a product, you’re also buying the marketing. Buy something from a phone telemarketer, you get more phone telemarketers, guaranteed. Buy a gas guzzler and they’ll build more. Marketers are simple people… they make what sells. Our culture has purchased (and voted) itself into the place we are today.”
The art of storytelling is and has always been the foundation of engaging and effective communication – independent of the way (media). You know, a great story (idea) always “sells”. Now, in the post “push advertising ” world, technology has changed the landscape and this art is even more critical. Today, connection (emotional, engaging, relevant) is the key for brand evolution. Your consumer has all the information, there is only one way to win them over…
Some interesting stats on this Consumers Itching to Talk to Brands (summary by FutureLab) – Findings: Why Companies Should Talk to Customers (summary by Jeremiah Owyang) and org. form ExpoTV.
“Narrative is the experience. As the Web becomes the preferred destination for brand exploration, digital experiences must become richer, deeper, and more able to tell compelling stories. If your brand experience depends entirely on pages and clicks, it’s time to wonder, ‘What is my story?“- from Avenue A Razorfish’s Digital Outlook Report.
If you got all the pieces – what is your story?
AdAge on Separating Brilliance From Blabber. A round the table discussion with some heavy weight bloggers/marketers (Power 150 network) on the subject of making sense of the shift in relationships between the consumers, brands, marketers and media. Brilliant conversation on the subject with maybe a not so surprising outcome which I have tried to capture below.
So the game is changing (yes yes we all know this…), but the large media/ad shops are still ignoring (yes they now have digital departments, but come on)… How do we educate to change the mid set…
“You’ve got to be ahead of what we’re doing. You’ve got to educate the agencies, because they’re the ones who for now are buying a lot of your advertising. So how do you help them see the next best thing? Blogging is going to be superseded by something bigger and better, and people like you, editors, need to know what that is. Because it’s going to bubble up from the people” – Lewis Green of Biz Solutions Plus.
Yep, got to be at least on game, well preferably ahead and know your stuff. The web thing is not that new anymore, so one should know this. The social aspect maybe new, but anyone with a little vision can see the potential in this for both brands and media… why then are we struggling here? It is all about the education, correction, all about the right persuasion tactics… One need to sell this in the right way… for the VP’s there is one way, for the media companies there is another and so on (hey sounds like advertising to me). Like Green and Howard points out.
“I came out of the corporate world as VP of marketing, and I’m not going to do any of the things you guys are suggesting, as a VP of marketing, because you haven’t told me how that gives me more customers. I only care about social media if it helps me to create more loyal customers. As a VP of marketing for a major brand, I don’t care about filtering and aggregating, and I don’t care whether you give me a link or not.” – Lewis Green.
“The conversation that needs to be had with big brands is this: They are looking at how media is changing, they are talking about fragmentation, about spend, about all these things. That’s not the game. The game is that behaviors are changing. So the discussion we generally get into is to focus on understanding the shift in behavior. Once we start to understand the shift in behavior, then we can start talking about things like context and relevance, which is really what we’re talking about.” Sean Howard of Livingston Buzz
Only when one has understanding one can reap the benefits (that sounds very zen, but not a quote:). There are lots of great people out there that has full understanding of this, so persuade without steeping on peoples feet. Aha, there lies another dilemma, the egos. As pointed out by Dickman:
“The other conversation inside the agencies that I’m seeing now is there’s so much confusion. Really, because the PR shops, Fleishman, Ogilvy and all those guys are doing the digital stuff, but the client may have a digital agency, and then they have an ad agency that also has a digital group, and there’s all this confusion on who has control of that space. And it’s worse for the client, the marketer. Trying to educate them on how to deal with that situation to get the most out of their money — it’s very confusing.” Matt Dickman of Technomarketer.
Adaption without full knowledge. Noted that many of the larger shops get good people joining but many of the clients don’t, to many players syndrome. Hard pressed to find a solution here, but believe that it is good with separated disciplines, have specialists on each subject. This is especially true for fields that are constantly evolving. Important is that these specialist have a 360 view on what they do, so opportunities do not get lost in narrowness. Integrated com, optimal use of all channels – done by specialist in respective fields. So let’s put egos aside. Less confusion and better communication…
Good point also by Green on where this will happen (quickest).
“The Fortune 500 is never going to lead anything. The Fortune 500 [are] going to be the last adapters. I work with what I would call midsize companies ($100 million companies). It’s uphill with their marketing people, but they are willing to listen because their margins are thinner, and some are public and some aren’t. And that’s where I think we have to do a better job. Because it’s not going to come down from above. It isn’t. The Apples and IBMs and Microsofts — when the time comes, they are going to do the mergers and acquisitions to get what we’re all talking about.” – Lewis Green.
Warping this up – educated persuasion with friendly collaboration between specialist from the ground up… I love to here your thoughts on this subject.
Now here’s my assessment of the company’s opportunity.
FriendFeed aggregates many important data points about lifestyle and interest. Thus, it could become a very powerful behavioral marketing play. This wouldn’t be the place for demographically targeted brand advertising, or for FreeCreditReport.com to whack prospects over the head with direct response ads.
It would, however, be a good place for ads targeted by interest. Perhaps when someone reads that a friend posted a link to a product, or commented on a story about said product, or otherwise interacted with it, there would be an opportunity for a targeted online ad, once FriendFeed observed an interest in it.
For instance, if Jim Meskauskas twittered a link to a blurb about the new season of “Battlestar Galactica,” and I followed that link, I might start seeing ads for tune-in in my feed. In this way, targeted advertising would not only be able to inform, but it also could amplify viral effects, and we could avoid much of the criticism of online ads by steering clear of the shotgun approach.
I see an interesting ad play here, provided it’s managed such that the ads are kept relevant.
Agree in general – a good way of delivering ads here is to react on behavior and provide relevant ads/links. I would find it very annoying though to find ads floating around my feeds, even if relevant. These services are meant to be an overview of what is going on in your social sphere, clutter free… not filled with relevant ads…
Now, there is a big opportunity here – a endless sea of user behavioral data, both social and private – which can’t be ignored and must make money at some point (sorry to say, but that is the reality). In my opinion, we now have a chance to do something more and move along relevant ad serving.
A thought: we have the data and can attach this to some sort of promotion or brand, the questions is then how? Without being intrusive and add to the clutter. Thinking of in post linking – once an interests is identified one get links (ad served) added to relevant key words in the post and / or at the bottom, this is for both own and friends posts. As in the example above, Battlestar Galactica and a new season, when a key word relating to BG in your next posts appears, they are now linked to the new season site. You might also find links at the bottom of the post that links to complete previous season available for download on… or DVD. Should also add an link preview to this, you know rollover bubble of info on link (nice place for graphic as well). This I feel would eliminate the ads floating around (- clutter) and give relevant links to the specific interesting content right where you read… Thoughts?