Social Media & Survival Instinct

Brands and businesses are increasingly stepping on to the Social Media platform. And it is probably a step in the right direction as I had mentioned in an earlier post.

But despite an ever-increasing number of people using Social platforms, successful use of Social Media for marketing or advertising have been largely flashes in the pan. Then why is there an almost inexorable push towards it? Why is there an overwhelming urge to (re)engage with society?

Could it be plain survival instinct?

Perhaps the realisation that to be of any consequence, businesses need to prove that there is creativity and humanity - not just cold profiteering - within the walls of the corporate world.

Or perhaps the realisation that to affect any form of loyalty, brands need to actually listen and deliver what consumers want.

Given such strong possibilities, any Social Media campaign created to follow a trend is probably going to disappoint. And any campaign created to deceive the audience is going to boomerang. Big time.

Why should we believe Domino's now if they were lying before?

It's exactly what Stephen Colbert implies on Comedy Central about their Domino's 'Pizza Turnaround' ad.

http://www.brandfreak.com/2010/01/why-should-we-believe-dominos-now-if-they-were-lying-before.html

Personally, I actually liked Domino's more than most other pizzas. I thought their Cheese-filled crusts were awesome! (Maybe they use better ingredients in India?) I can't quite put my finger on it, but the new ad somehow made me feel quite daft for it!

I am sure the agency and brand management guys had the right intention... But then again, I have a nagging doubt that if any of them continually chose Domino's Pizza over competitive brands (like I did), they'd have an idea of what I feel like right now.

All of it sort of brings us back to what Ogilvy once said about always using (and believing in) the products he helped sell. If we don't believe in it, nothing we do (slick commercial included) will persuade a viewer to.

The customer isn't a moron...

Corporate Information: Process vs. Performance

The other day at my usual watering-hole, I overheard a group of obviously senior executives attribute (quite vociferously) the dismal performance of their organisation to the lack of motivation and initiative among subordinates. An all-too-familiar litany of woes followed. And I ordered another beer just to hear how they'd tackle it.

After as much deliberation as possible over one beer, they arrived at the conclusion that one of the thing that was wrong was the apparently free flow of confidential information within the organisation - which on occasions even helped wrong-doers evade detection! (Irony, meawhile was enjoying a second beer!)

The solution that presented itself was a series of processes to firstly arrest the flow of information. And secondly use that cover to strike out at errant behaviour. And it should start, they decided, right at the bottom. Not of the problem - but of the company!

I finished the beer and left.

They had a problem. Sure. But I wasn't so sure if they had a solution. To be sure, neither did I. But I did have another line-of-thought...

Earlier that evening an old acquaintance appraised me about the unfortunate goings-on at one of the most respected Advertising offices in India. Apparently, new HR processes brought in by the Management had rubbed the oldest members (and hitherto virtually family members) the wrong way. Why? Evidently, there was a lack of information on how the new processes would help the organisation - or impact employees. The effect was a drop in motivation and morale. A formidable, tightly-knit unit had begun to reveal treacherous chinks.

So here are two instances where - in one case, the abundance of unselective information was a problem; and in another, the lack of selective information caused much the same. So what does one do with information in an organisation?

Or perhaps the right question would be: HOW DOES ONE USE INFORMATION TO MOTIVATE?

Let's looks at the 'information' in the first instance. Confidential information. It has one source: The top end of the organisational heirarchy. And its casual availability points to one cause: Unaccountability. Transmitted down-the-line, it breeds inefficiency, dishonesty, hearsay and lethargy. Everyone knows exactly how much tardiness they can get away with. Welcome to The Comfort Zone (a.k.a The Rut).

In this condition, even the slightest spark of initiative is smothered as a threat to the Status Quo!

In the second instance, the 'information' that was lacking was a shared or common goal. The new HR processes unexpectedly cleaved a chasm between the decision-makers and people who (perhaps, rightly) considered themselves part of the decision-making apparatus until that very moment... It was a rude awakening to the status of an (expendable) 'human resource'!

When times are difficult, businesses would do well to demand more accountabilty up-the-line (because that's where it's supposed to originate); and promote more 'shared goals' and initiative down-the-line (because that's where it's most needed).

Why should this matter to people in Advertising?

This is a post about 'Google’s biggest threat for 2010'.

Sorry. Couldn't put it better...
http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=6519

But why should it matter? Because Google is the world's largest ad agency!

And in a way they are pushing for the final frontier of advertising: Messaging to a Target Individual!

Folks, meet Big Brother...

Big Brother already knows you!

Psst, who's the new guy in the room?

He's the Consumer. And, er, we're in his bedroom!

Flashback...

A long time ago, Advertising talked to individuals.

These were folk you'd see at the busstop; haggling with the storekeeper; alternately sending kids off to school and yelling at them; and sometimes preparing breakfast in the kitchen.

But they were different people. All of them. About the only thing they had in common was that they were likely to buy what we were Advertising!

Later...

Perhaps to fit in with our obession for mass media, we took to creating ads for a faceless, generic statistic called the Target Group (TG).

Once the human element vanished, with it naturally, went empathy.

The Consumer didn't much care for Advertising anyway. He doesn't perceive, let alone relate to, most of it! Irrelevance now made it easier to ignore - like the noise on a busy street. Then we raised the decible level. And promptly became annoying too!

Now, with Social Media, we're climbing in through the Consumer's bedroom windows. Literally.

It's time we dropped our obsession with the medium, introduced ourselves, and got to know him personally.

Or this could get ugly!

Cynicism and Advertising

First, it was the audience.

Then, it was the client.

Now I fear, it is the Advertising professional!

Increasingly, I see talented people in advertising wracked with self-doubt; questioning the power and very relevance of their work. Of course, there are many factors to blame. But biggest one is within.

We must first be convinced of the merit of our work. Because our creation will only carry as much conviction as the creator!

Cynicism won't wreck Advertising. (There is just too much passion in this industry.) But it will be the cause of bad advertising. And that will eventually wreck the cynic.

What is the marketing problem that Social Media solves?

Ok, for a moment, let's assume that the Advertising landscape has indeed changed. And that Social Media is the future of Advertising (or the most significant component in it).

Let's look at what Social Media brings to the table: Feedback. Engagement. Conversation.

But are these really new concepts? No.

Every ad, direct mailer, biscuit packet, credit card, delivery truck, and website comes with contact details. Tollfree numbers. Call centres. Email ids... Opportunities for engagement. (But we know how that panned out!)

So what's different about Social Media? What's the problem that Social Media solves that traditional advertising can't?

Could it be that in a Social Media environment, brands are actually compelled to be more open and sincere? Is the urge to belong (in communities) making brands act more responsibly - and be more responsive? And since out-sourcing and automated replies won't do, is it forcing brands to act more - well, human?

Brands were created by people. They represented communities. Then they grew. And they grew. They became multinational (belonging to many communities). Then transnational (belonging to no communitiy in particular). They merged. They integrated forward and backward. They standardised and they outsourced, till all that was left was a mere logo. And brands became intangible, uncaring instruments for profit-making.

If this is the problem Social Media is addressing. Then, it's a good start. But only a start.