HEAD BLOG » strategy

The next step in social media

Dom — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:00:25 +0000

Any time now the world is going to start up a demand for typewriters and all you fools with computers and keyboards had better watch out.

I’m certain of it.

I’m ready, of course. I’ll be selling ink ribbons on eBay at a premium price so as to cash in quickly before the shuttered factories are dusted off and machinery cranks once more into action. And after that, as old businesses are called to perform once more, then I will act as an advisor. A guru. Wise in the processes of touch typing and carriage returns.

Of course things aren’t going to be like they used to be. That would be silly.

No, these new typewriters will be modern. They will be optimised for Twitter; accepting tiny sheets of paper designed to be efficiently scanned in and distributed within the day.

Sure, it will be slower. But people will think more. Rash statements and bandwagons will be a thing of the past and only the most crafted thoughts will be considered.

Not everybody will adopt the new technology. Some people will continue to use a computer to bash out a hundred messages a day but this will be quickly corralled and those opinions will be placed in a digital kindergarten.

It will still be social. There’s no getting away from that. In fact it will be more social. More people will be involved in getting your message onto the Internet.

Oh, and we’ll have typing pools again. Those sounded nice.

So maybe I’m off on one or two of the details. But the technology we use will change, the way we define ‘social’ on the Internet will change. At the moment it is too preoccupied with the channels rather than the message so brands interested in the long haul will spend time learning the principles behind what doesn’t change. The principles of people. The way we like to listen, to talk and to while away the time in a bid to drown out the clatter of keyboards and work in our lives.

I’m selling my village

Dom — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:00:54 +0000

The village where I live have joined the marketing game. Investments in signage and newsletters are all around, logo design cannot be far behind.

The pressure to join this game is immense but all too often the execution is lacking the guidance which could be gained through an analysis of the aims. It’s clearly a case of ‘what’ shall we do rather than ‘why’ should we do it.

And so the residents are told of a postcard competition. Amateur photographers have been invited to submit their views of the village and a postcard is to be printed a distributed to newsagents in the local area where it will fade alongside the hopes of the out-of-date football calendar.

It’s the postcard which gives us our clearest insight into the committee process as, after showing a witty cartoon sketch card from the 1950s, the modern counterpart is unveiled alongside careful explanations. This image of the stone hewn village marker has been elevated to tourist attraction, that view away from the village is a point of difference. And look, we have included a view along the main lane because it was felt the boarded-up shops were not otherwise represented. Nobody seems to ever asked what these scenes really offer us by way of promotion. Just lots of people squeezing in aspects thought to represent a ‘side’ worth, well, representing.

Nowhere in the process has anybody asked what is being sold and that’s where the opportunity has been missed. All the perceived gears of marketing are being swung into action but we are missing the actual product.

Views of the village aren’t, in all honesty, up to much. These scenes won’t be chosen for chocolate boxes to represent a golden era. Flower displays, lovely and welcome as they may be, aren’t the reason a young family will put down roots.

The real sadness is that it wouldn’t take much to uncover potential products upon which a genuine sales initiative could take place. The village is surrounded by farmland that could be tapped to provide goods which could be uniquely ours. Local businesses and landlords could be shown the benefits of working together to make more of eyesore spaces that would lift the shopping areas. Such businesses would do much to foster community in which generations could mix. If you know your neighbours and your community, you are more likely to want to support it. Activities could then be based on people rather than new signs.

In all, efforts to find a real and sustainable product for the village would pay dividends for everyone and when the committee meets to flex its wannabe marketing muscles it can do so in the knowledge that they won’t be selling their own, hopeful impressions of a village that doesn’t really exist.

Speak to somebody new today

Dom — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:00:37 +0000

It’s not surprising, but social media is a reflection of our real world social activity. Because of this it’s very easy to use it just to continue conversations with old friends or colleagues. For those of us using it to connect to family it is fast replacing the catch-up email, gaining a little bit of the repartee we enjoy face-to-face.

It can, however, be so much more as the online services we use lower barriers found elsewhere in society. It’s not everybody who speaks up against hundreds of people to disagree with a viewpoint and yet through social media we find that easy. Or easier, at least.

So too is the opportunity to meet new people. View a video on YouTube and comment, read some views on Twitter, it’s all easy to find like-minded folk out there to share opinions with. All this, great as it can be, does follow regular social mores. Where social media really takes off, however, is in the opportunities it offers to meet really new people. People whose views we don’t always agree with.

These are the people who can shake our world view and challenge us to either stand up or adapt, both incredibly difficult in the flow of our regular lives where we embed ourselves in the comfort zone. See this as an anti-dating challenge. Meet people you don’t agree with but who are new and refreshing and a reminder that there is more to the world than your own perspective.

As marketing people, as creatives, as opinion formers, this process can be essential in getting more out of social media whether that is for the benefit of personal growth or figuring out what your Market might really be looking for from your communication strategy.

Deliver the promise

Dom — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:00:53 +0000

In the car, early one morning, my friend told me his boss had been trying to persuade him not to retire next year. The boss explained that he had never had any complaints about that one plant (my friend loads aggregates, it’s typically a one person per plant job and you need to be everything from labourer to customer care manager).

So, no complaints. Not a single customer had to call in ten years to ask where their concrete was.

The boss said he wished he had more people like my friend and asked why he was so different to every other plant manager in the group.

My friend explained that he lived by a simple tagline (he didn’t use that term) which was ‘deliver the promise’. If a customer had been promised a load and my friend was running late then the customer still received it as promised, even if it meant working late (and loads are never, unlike taxis, promised as being just around the corner).

My friend is one of those people, rare in my experience, who pose a real problem to management. They are indispensable in their current roles but would be invaluable ‘higher up’ in a training or management role.

Such a simple philosophy can underpin any other brand. I’m writing this whilst stood across the platform from a billboard proclaiming NatWest’s charter commitments as they make promises (I wish they were different promises really but that’s a separate matter) which presumably they will deliver.

Advertising can sometimes be an attempt to make something from nothing, an attempt to hoodwink the consumer into buying something they do not need (or at least desire). ‘Deliver the promise’ is the antidote to this. It cuts through to the core of what any brand should be offering and enables campaigns to be bold and uncynical knowing that what they are selling will deliver the promise of reliability, genuine interest, comfort – whatever it is the product has set out to do.

A kitchen gadget, the sort we all buy, might therefore, through a deliver the promise strategy, be designed to genuinely change the way we peel or slice rather than being discarded after a few tries.

My friend has promised to retire next year. I’d hope his company wishes that this one time, it’s a promise he doesn’t deliver.

Authority and circumlocution

Dom — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:00:56 +0000

There was a period, a long period, back in the history of advertising when certain things held true. An ad could give advice, for example, or have an opinion and the agency would be pretty certain it would be received as intended. If they made a claim that doctors smoked cigarettes because they were good for your health then you and I would simply just accept this as a fact. If the agency, on behalf of their corporate overlords, assured us that the oil pouring out of a hole in the seabed was actually beneficial to the sea life, well, who could doubt the printed word?

Authority was absolute. At least for the purposes of selling.

The change in behaviour, however, was coming. Our relationship with consumerism and the companies which provided us with product after product was bound to be affected by mass media which showed us different cultures and the impact of our actions upon them. We were given the means through which we could see, test and then question the decisions our political leaders made and we could organise like never before.

These insights into how authority operated affected our relationship with advertising. Like seeing the flaws in a parent as we get older, so were we able to see how misleading the claims of advertising could be.

The past ten years has seen change of this sort again but at an unprecedented pace. The Internet has begun to affect us in ways we were not prepared for and still don’t truly understand. It may well be decades before we adjust to modern life, if such a thing is even possible anymore.

Businesses, and the advertising agencies which represent them, have reacted in different ways. A tiny few have embraced, and appear to understand, the responsibility granted by social marketing but many still adhere to the Authority model, filling their pronouncements so painfully with jargon as to make it appear archaic.

The reasoning, I believe, comes from too much love.

The people who work with these brands all respect the process too much. If a decision is made to make bottled water from tap water then, because they understand the process then they respect the decision. It’s the same logic that swallows the line about a company’s interest being its customers so why would it ever do anything to jeopardise that interest.

The balance comes not from cynicism, however. This leads to being unable to sell what the company has to sell. A cynical creative is one not in a position to see the good in a product that might lie beyond the jargon-filled nonsense.

The balance comes from questioning authority, from demanding it to explain itself in terms you can understand and by using talking points and conversation starters, not declarations.

Microsoft need to commit

Dom — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:00:40 +0000

Microsoft seem unable to commit

Now you see it, now you don’t. Microsoft released their new branding device and company tagline yesterday.

And then withdrew it.

It drew the usual polarised opinions on Twitter and then, just a few hours later, was taken down. The tagline was for real but the logos, which showed the Microsoft product family, were not, in fact, new logos. Rather, they were an example of “a standalone treatment to show the flexibility of joined brands” (Engadget).

The opinions, the polarisation, the hate, all of these are de rigeur for any new brand these days. When opinions (such as mine) can be released and propagated within seconds, it’s inevitable. What’s interesting, to me at least, is that Microsoft chose to withdraw them.

Brand design is such a personal art. You either love the logo or you don’t really care. Even the haters will continue as usual once their bile has sunk back again.

So why would Microsoft back down?

When it comes to creating logos to reflect brands, many companies, large or small, want to please everybody. They want something that (as Steve Jobs once proposed) becomes a jewel. Everybody loves jewels. They sparkle, attract our attention and are worth a fortune.

What’s more, we love them instantly.

Open the box and what do you see? That’s right, treasure. And desire plays out upon our faces. It’s the reaction beloved of companies.

When that reaction is lessened, for whatever reason, a company can be thrown into turmoil. They sense a lack of love and fear that will reflect upon their business.

It’s easy to see why Microsoft would do the same.

With Apple being the… ummm… being so well loved by consumers, Microsoft feel threatened. Witness the constant faltering and self doubt over many of their product launches lately. They get buzz but then lose it through the self doubt and inaction. Apple announce a product and then release it. Apple love themselves, Microsoft don’t.

They need to realise that many people are happy with what they produce. It might not be passionate, it might not be vocal.

But they show commitment nonetheless. They should understand that self doubt is infecting their brand more than any perceived criticism.

A little self-love would inspire far more confidence than the efforts of analysts and graphic designers.

Advertising is about understanding the balance

Dom — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:00:17 +0000

My phone isn’t very good at making calls. I wouldn’t swap it for another.

I have a computer that isn’t very comfortable to type on. But that’s ok. Because I have another that is. That one just doesn’t show video very well.

Luckily I have a solution for that. I have a third computer that is perfect for typing and has a great screen. Everything looks amazing on it.

Only, it’s not portable.

Many people won’t go to these extremes of course. Many people will have one computer that does more or less everything they need, more or less satisfactorily.

I have a TV like this. It’s not flat. The colour is fading and the sound gives the sensation I’m sat in another room.

I’m ok with that.

Most things in life are about balance, about finding the one thing that matters most to you and just accepting the failings of the rest.

Sometimes advertising has to face up to this fact too.

You listen to a bunch of really cool things about a product and you realise that for every cool thing, there will have been a compromise. It could be screen size, it could be portability.

It will be something.

The trick is to understand what matters most and focus on that.

You can’t be everything to everyone.

Design is different to brand

Dom — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:00:09 +0000

These says the term ‘brand’ has become a catch all for any company thinking about reaching into the hearts and minds of consumers everywhere. It can be summarized as a logo and, occasionally, a set of principles which the company tries to ring fence as being typically theirs.

It’s easy to see why they take this view of course. The super companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple and… ummm… Head First occupy the places in the minds of people that can be identified as ‘brand aware’. When asked, consumers will probably be aware, not only of these companies logos, but also of their ideological standpoints.

What right thinking, emergent company wouldn’t want a piece of this action? To them, getting the brand right leads inexorably to prominence, take-up and financial success.

Allow me to tell you a little story.

A friend of mine started a company providing services to children. On a casual consultancy level, I was asked to chip in on the subject of brand.
My friend was very keen on creating a brand.

I probed a little deeper in order to ascertain what, exactly, was meant by ‘brand’ and, sure enough, the concept appeared to be linked tightly to logo.

That’s not right, I said. Brand is different to design. Think of brand as something you earn through great service and a lot of time. And even then, turning your company into a brand takes a whole lot more than making sure you maintain your logo according to a designer’s style guide.

Look at Coca Cola, I said. That’s a brand. However we may feel about it, whatever we may see in the difference between the public face they market and the reality of their business practices, they can be clearly identified alongside specific values.
And that isn’t because they have slavishly followed design guidelines down the decades. It’s because they have vigorously marketed their product alongside a very particular viewpoint. It has cost hundreds of millions and taken decades.

Even those companies for which brand status has come quicker haven’t fallen into the trap of being restricted design-wise. Their service has come before all else and that is what has shaped any design elements to their promotions.

And those elements have changed over time, adapting, as they should, to changing tastes, expectations and technologies.

So the next time a designer (or a client) insists that you must present everything in a certain colour in order to adhere to brand guidelines, do them a favour and tell them to Google ‘brand’ for a while.

On the value of ownership

Dom — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:00:18 +0000

Hands up anyone who knows someone who buys books because of the way they can compliment a room? Leatherbound or classic Penguin, definitely old and from a worthy writer, the checklist is easy to compile. They add dignity to the space they inhabit and weight to the owner. Buying them and displaying them, perhaps on shelves or perhaps in carefully arranged stacks, is a declaration of taste as the owner looks to impress upon us a holistic approach to interior design.

Many of us shrink from such displays even if we also display our books in such a way. Ours, for starters, have all been read, all loved and bought for the right reasons. We don’t buy art to match the curtains and we don’t buy books to rest between carved, wooden bookends.

But we do like it when others notice our more natural display of bookish taste. That old copy of Oliver Twist was bought second hand and read on holiday. That’s genuine. Dickens is a genius and still relevant today. And yes, we now buy hardback books, special editions where available, signed if possible – not because they look good to others but because they add to the pleasure of reading.

Because there is nothing wrong with collecting.

What is it about owning things that brings such pleasure? We all make our decisions, draw our lines in the sand when it comes to ownership. For some a “serious” book must be real but quick reads could probably be digital. For others all books could be digital but take away our LPs and there will be a ruckus. The pleasure is in the decaying paper, the smell, the scratchy sounds of the stylus, the ritual of purchase and consumption; things come into focus like stars aligning with our self-image.

Is the value, therefore, of a product in the core offering (the words, the ideas) or is it something entirely different, larger? Is it in the way it is wrapped up and presented? Is it in the kudos it bestows upon us? Why do we pay more for nicer packaging and to what level will this be replicated on digital devices? Much space is given over to the “dvd extras” approach but do they add any real value for the customer? Would, in short, the same consumer who might have bought into a physical special edition be persuaded to pay an extra few pounds for some behind the scenes video extras or author journals? Is physical design worth more than digital design?

Look at the chatter surrounding pricing on the iPad vs that of the iPhone. The standard of games on the latter impressed everyone and has shaken the world of gaming. Fully featured games for less than a fiver. Yet when it comes to the iPad people are wondering what is justifying the extra cost. Is screen size enough to charge more and if not how do we really know whether the game has been improved on the iPad?

It’s all a magnificent, personal and rambling subject of course. But as the road to digital downloads becomes as assured as the road to hell, it’s a subject worth considering.

iAd is welcome, but it’s not new

Dom — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:00:28 +0000

Apple’s recent announcement of the iAd system was designed to further desensitize us to use of the lower case “i” in a bid to trademark the letter and prevent us all from talking about ourselves.

It also had the effect of exciting an awful lot of media buyers who know that wherever Apple walk, premium pricing “opportunities” are sure to follow.

The system was heralded as something new, as adding value to advertising as only Apple can by being more than than just animated text over a background – something most marketing people seem happy with when it comes to online advertising.

It’s a welcome move.

But it certainly isn’t new.

The Great Enemy – Flash – is capable of doing everything Steve Jobs demonstrated. It just isn’t done very often. All creative advertisers (not just Head First) understand that people don’t really want to click through because, well, they were on that page for a reason. Enabling consumers (or people, as we like to call them) to be diverted but not distracted is something we would all love to do because we’re people too. I’m reading a story and I like the cut of your ad. That doesn’t mean I want to marry it. I might explore a little further, see what the rollover state is but really, I’d like to carry on reading.

iAds “solves” this by not taking you out of the App space. It has the benefit of working within a fixed frame, thereby ensuring designers can make full use of space rather than be restricted to 300×250 or 728×90. And creating a mini-site within the ad, with all the hooks into the system is a great idea. It’s what closed systems can excel in.

But it’s not new.

Our recent ad for MotoGP 09/10 enabled people to choose from a variety of different trailers depending upon their interest in the game – from balls to the wall action to the more strategic coolness the game offers.

Much like the iAd proposition, it didn’t demand that you visit the website in order to explain why you really ought to buy the game. It showed you what was cool and then left it to you to decide.

We think that’s sensible. We know it helps sales.

Not all briefs enable us to this of course. Some briefs are written so that the client can increase traffic to the website.

And that’s ok too.

iAds will be a lovely advertising system. But it’s not new and certainly not innovative. All products can benefit from such an approach if they opt to bring the sales message to the person, not send the person to the message.