content creating, engaging, IPA|ED:one, social networking, user-generating

I Loved it So Much I Bought (Into) The Company: the rise of the crowdmanaged brand

Beer_bankroll_2
so those observant people at Springwise have spotted the latest brand to cede control to its potential consumers.  hot on the heels of crowdmanaged eco clothing company nvohk and MyFootballClub's purchase of Ebbsfleet United comes BeerBankroll.com.

for just $50 you get to join an online community for beer lovers where you can not only share your passion for beer but at the same time help create a brewing company.  as Springwise reports, the site:

"…is currently recruiting a minimum of 50,000 members, each of whom
will contribute USD 50 in exchange for voting rights on ideas such as
the company name, logo, product design, product mix, marketing plan,
advertising and sponsorship … Assuming the concept goes well, profits
will be divided three ways: one part to members in the form of reward
points redeemable for products from the Beer Bankroll store; one part
back to the company; and one part to charity"

this potentially potent project is feasible because of tho things: (1) access to information and (2) the ability to share and manipulate that information within the context of a networked community.  and it of course relies on Surowiecki's three requirements for Wisdom in a Crowd: diversity of opinion, decentralisation and independence.

I used to work with a small brewery brand and I acutely recall conversations about how they could, and should, more effectively and transparantely engage with those consumers who (we knew) loved their brand.  but the old habits of deployment of planned branded communications won out (and still does – I observe – to this day).

that brewery and many other brands should be paying close attention to this space.  how long before we all have a couple of side-interests in brands…?  brands that will not only occupy a small – very engaged – part of our mind, but a considerable share of our wallet too.  after all, if the brand was so good that you bought and continue to buy into it, why – when you get to the shelf – would you buy anything else?!

Standard
engaging, internet, social networking, user-generating

Analogue Politicians in the Digital Age: how YouTube came to Downing Street

back in June of last year I wrote a post in which I quoted Tim Montgomerie who in the Spectator suggested that the next general election will be remembered as 'Britain’s first internet election'.  He
notes that “in this new world [of internet communities] the campaign
staff of political parties and traditional media will have a much
smaller share of power”.  I suggested that both brands and political parties needed to shift from 'send' to 'receive' mode.

either because of my post, or as a result of jibes made by David Cameron that Brown is "an analogue politician in a digital age", Downing Street has just engaged its 'receive' mode.  it takes the form of a Downing Street Channel on YouTube, on which – in the above video – Gordon asks for questions from the YouTube community.

it's an interesting – if clunky – development, and a far-cry from the slickness of the WebCameron site.  but this is part of it's charm.  despite the fact that watching the PM ask for questions like "how globalisation's working?" or "what's happenning to Climate Change?" is a bit like watching a bad audition for Newsround, there is the clear ambition to not only let consumers set the agenda, but to go to an existing community.  this should be applauded; Cameron's site may be slicker, but it's still effectively a walled garden.

what will be really intriguing will be the potential debate that this could start…  Chris Crockers Britney video has been viewed 20 million times and has spawned a plethora of text and video responses.  we should hope that a similar, if less emotional, post from Gordon on globalisation could instigate a similar response.  we live in hope.

Standard
content creating, converging, user-generating

When Boris, Ken and Brian met George, Zippy and Bungle

a lovely bit of remix for the London Mayor elections which sees Boris, Ken and Brian meet George, Zippy and Bungle.  brands need to learn to more easily move this quickly, attaching themselves where relevant to current events.  the edit quality on this is superb – check out Zippy’s look of horror when George makes his accusation…  Adland watch and learn…

Standard
regulating, user-generating

Williams on Mead: Taking Control of the Underground

Williamsso I saw the above LEP this morning at Leicester Square…

to CBS its vandalism
to some punters its a laugh
to others its just irrelevant
to a strategist its remix
and to the advertiser its an urgent re-post please

but what is it to the person who did it?

an opportunity to make a statement and express their bewilderment and frustration with corporate entertainment that lazily rechurns old ideas because people have stopped expecting to be surprised with new ones?

or a bit of a laugh.  a chance to raise a smile on the faces of the passers-by who get Williams instead of Mead.  to surprise and amuse a tired and commuting-weary audience?

whichever it is, its I suppose about control.  a conventional advertiser losing it and a renegade gaining it.  this of course is nothing new – Innocent launched a decade ago with underground LAP stickering (and it didn’t do them any harm!)…

debate aside.  it made me laugh.

Standard
advertising, branding, content creating, IPA|ED:five, user-generating

The Trampling by Brands of User-Generated Creativity; why we have to do better than this

Ann_summers_viral_academy
so if once is an incidence, twice is a co-incidence and three times is a theory, then I reckon we have a hypothesis on our hands.  I’ve now noticed three brands of late directly asking users to create adverts for them on the brands terms.

the first and loosest brief came from Ann Summers (above) and their viral academy.  they’re quite direct about it "we don’t retain a creative agency; instead we welcome ideas from talented creative people who contact us directly".  fair enough.  having had content independently submitted, they wanted to make sure it was more formalised.  but the brief remains loose…

"We expect most of the ideas to be for short films – like the ones you can find here  but we don’t want to limit you in any way. If you have a great idea for
a game, a song, a comic – anything at all – we’d love to hear it" [source]

much more recently I’ve come across a couple of examples that don’t show quite the same latitude in their briefs, or what they’re willing to accept.

Doritos_make_me_an_ad_2
first came ‘you make it, we play it’ from Doritos.  they’re getting a bit more specific about what they want…  it’s got to be – for example – exactly 29 secs in length.  a bit more specific then…

but any reservations that Doritos might be taking a slight advantage of consumers  was blown out of the water when I saw Armani’s brief at the weekend…

Armani_advertising_contest
the rules – downloaded from the Armani contest website, stipulate that:

"each creation must comprise:

  • a packshot of the Emporio Armani For Him and For Her
    fragrances: either the packshot found on the Site (which under no circumstance
    may be modified) or a packshot of these fragrances created by the entrant;
  • the two logos found on the Site: Emporio Armani and Get
    together;
  • The English signature “Emporio Armani, The two fragrances:
    Get together”,to the exclusion of any other"

I’m not quite sure slave labour is what Larry Lessig had in mind when he talked about a truce in the corporate | consumer creative pact.  and I’m as sure as hell that ordering an army of consumers to use a packshot, logo and tagline as stipulated by Armani when user-generating, wasn’t approaching what Gibson or Jenkins had in mind when they described a future vision of participatory culture and collective intelligence.

brands either embrace the user-generation on their terms, with all the diversity that comes with it.  or once again miss the boat because they applied a brand-centric old model to a consumer-centric new world.  we surely have to do better than this.

Standard
branding, content creating, IPA|ED:three, user-generating

This Way Up: Packaging to Grow

This_way_upsvg
Packaging is the touch point that reaches every one of a
client’s existing customers, who are – as Julian Saunders notes – a client’s
most important audience; “The economics of winning a new customer versus
keeping an existing on is generally well known.  A healthy and mature service business should
get most of its business from existing customers”
[1].

This post is about how by adopting three behaviours a brand
can best use packaging as a communications channel to drive growth through
existing customers. Furthermore, I’ll
suggest how these three behaviours can be systemised and applied to the
majority of packaged brands in the form of a model for brand growth – packaging
to grow. 

Behaviour I – Adding Value In A World Of Abundance

The principle change over the last decade has been a shift
from media scarcity to media abundance – was the view expressed by Rory
Sutherland at a conference last year [2], something which also applies to
packaging media [3].  At the same time,
behavioural research shows that shoppers are becoming more selective – they
know what items they need and only go down those aisles [4].

In a world of abundance in which consumers know what they
want, brands must fight for the only scarce resource that remains –attention. Adding value through packaging is a key strategy
to get and maintain attention, ensuring consumers keep your brand in their
‘evoked set’ [5].

That’s why each winter bottles of Innocent smoothies wear hand-made
bobble hats. It’s why Abercrombie and
Fitch bags could be mistaken for posters [6], and it’s how the addition of
packaging (as opposed to download only) increased the retail value of
Radiohead’s recent ‘In Rainbows’ album more than nine-fold [7]. Value goes both ways.

Innocent_smoothies_with_hats_1
Radiohead_discbox
Af_bag_2
Adding value (top down): Innocent Bobble hats, Radiohead’s
‘In Rainbows’ boxed set and A&F posterbags

By adding value, packaging promotes brand growth through
re-conversion, reinforcing the decision to purchase, and increasing future
propensity to repurchase.

Behaviour II – Getting Personal In A Consumer-Made World

trendwatching.com [8] first identified ‘customer-made’ in
2005. By allowing consumers to
co-create, brands not only tap into the collective intellectual capital of the
crowd, but give their existing consumers personalised reasons to repurchase.

That’s why Jones’s Water has thousands of different customer-designed
labels, and why Pepsi commissioned 35 new designs for its cans [9]. It’s why Heinz let’s you buy a bottle of
ketchup with your name on it, and why the design on Saks Fifth Avenue’s bags is
recombined in an infinite – and therefore unique – number of ways [10].
 

Heinz_labels
Jones_soda
Saks_bags
Personalisation and customisation (top down): Customised
labels courtesy of My Heinz, Jones Soda Co’s labels as co-created with
customers, Pentagram’s Saks Fifth Avenue bag (the original logo is recombined
into unique combinations)

By promoting customisation and personalisation, packaging
promotes brand growth by enticing the consumer back for more of the different;
a unique experience; increasing frequency of purchase.

Behaviour III – Stimulating Conversations In A Networked
World

“In the old paradigm … mass persuasion involved exposing
millions of consumers to commercial messages … in the new paradigm, the boot is
on the other foot … Target audiences are … a community of interconnected people
within which brand perceptions are shaped by multiple influences”
notes Will
Collin [11]. There exists legislation in
these networks; its Gladwell’s Law of the Few – which describes how
‘Connectors’ behave like social glue, spreading a message [12].

An LSE’s study into brand advocacy proved that the more
advocates a brand has, the higher the brand growth; in general, brands grow
four times faster with positive as opposed to negative word-of-mouth profiles
[13]. So it’s in a brand’s interests to
give its potential advocates – its consumers – reasons to start conversations.

That’s why first BBC2 and now Channel 4 invest buckets in
idents (programme packaging) that gets talked about, and why Nokia created
bespoke packaging that fitted through a letterbox if you told them you didn’t
need a new charger.

Bbc2floor
Channel4_skyscraper
Channel4_hay
TV Packaging (top down): BBC2’s ‘Saw’, Channel 4’s ‘City’ and
‘Corn Field’

By stimulating conversations amongst its existing clients,
packaging promotes brand growth by introducing new consumers to a brand,
increasing penetration.

Packaging to Grow: A Model

Growth_model_v2

Making it Happen

Case Study One: Powerade

Mission: grow volumes

  • Powerade could add value by printing specific gym programmes
    with expert trainer advice on the side of bottles.
  • They personalise packaging by encouraging consumers to
    suggest new programmes which are rotated on a 10 week basis; encouraging
    variation in gym routine [14] and generating sales through increased frequency
    of purchase.
  • Word on mouth is encouraged by displaying monthly challenges
    on in-gym vending machines; ‘challenge a friend to do the workout with you’.

Case Study Two: UKTV Food

Mission:
Grow share of audience

  • In a digital world every niche station is fighting for
    share, and UKTV Food is no exception. They add value to idents (their packaging) by suggesting interesting new
    ingredients under the banner of; ‘Different Every Day’.
  • Customisation is delivered thru red-button – click on an
    ident for more information on an ingredient and how it can be incorporated into
    individual cooking regimes.
  • Partnering with Sainsbury’s and aligning UKTV Food’s
    ‘Different Every Day’ to the retailer’s ‘Try Something New today’ would see
    Sainsbury’s signpost in-store to the ingredient of the week; stimulating
    conversations via the most credible of corporate advocates.

Case Study three: Dulux

Mission:
Consolidate market share

  • Dulux could add-value by attaching unique colour charts to
    their tins of paint, indicating – for future use – what items will match the
    new colour on the walls of Andy and Charlie’s room.
  • Behaviour two allows Andy and Charlie to create their own
    unique colour of paint, but rather than packaging it in a standard tins, they
    customise their own design and take the paint home in a bespoke tin.
  • Dulux then builds a social network group that allows
    customers to patent and publish their colours. This encourages Andy and Charlie to contact their friends, advising them
    that they can now order Andy and Charlie’s own patented Dulux colour for their
    own homes [15].

 

What you waiting for?

One model: three behaviours;

Add value, personalise, and stimulate conversations.

Use packaging to grow.

Sources and References

[1] Quotation from A market leader exclusive report: What is
really changing in Marketing Communications? (Julian Saunders). This crucial importance of existing customers
was reinforced in an influential piece of research by the LSE who identified
that “businesses seeking year-on-year growth may be overlooking their most
powerful growth-generating asset – existing clients, customers and consumers”

(Source: Advocacy drives growth – Exclusive research from the London School of
Economics reveals the benefits and pitfalls of word-of-mouth communication (LSE
2005)

[2] Delivering the Landmark Creative Campaign – a speech to
the IPA Outdoor’s Seeing Digital Conference (Rory Sutherland).

[3] This shift is reflected in the supermarket packaging
media; John Hagel has commented that “over time, more and more products entered
the market and shelf space became the scarce good (quoting John Hagel)

[4] Source: The In-store Environment. Research observed that whilst 30% of shoppers
demonstrated ‘selective’ shopping in 2003, by 2006 that figure had risen to
34%. Notably, this behaviour is
reflected online, where there are no isles; search engines make virtually all
customer orientation selective

[5] Source: The In-store Environment. Quoting from the same source: “The evoked set
is the group of products from which the shopper will make their final decision
… if categories or products do not appear in the evoked set, it is harder for
the merchandising and point of sale activity to differentiate a category or
product because it must enable both the conversion from visitor to shopper, and
from shopper to buyer”.

[6] Or art prints – depending on your perspective!

[7] When Radiohead’s ‘in rainbows’ was released in October
2007 as download only – unpackaged – the value was determined by consumers;
they could choose their own purchase price – the average price chosen to pay
was £3.88 (source). At the start of December 2007 the same
content was released in the form of a three-format discbox. The asking price for a product valued at
£3.88 with packaging? …£40.00.

[8] source … Quoting the site; "Get ready for
CUSTOMER-MADE: the phenomenon of corporations creating goods, services and
experiences in close cooperation with consumers, tapping into their
intellectual capital, and in exchange giving them a direct say in what actually
gets produced, manufactured, developed, designed, serviced, or processed"

[9] Early in 2007 Pepsi commissioned US design
company Arnell Group to develop 35 designs new designs for its cans, including
12 inch vinyls, gleaming hubcabs, swirling tattoos and 31 other pieces of
artwork drawing from different strands of youth culture – source.

[10] Whilst the bag – designed by Pentagram Design
technically didn’t have an infinite number of designs, more than several
trillion combinations gets it pretty much there.

[11] Quoting: Will Collin writing about the paradigm shift
in the communications industry in a Campaign supplement

[12] Source: The terms ‘Law of the Few’ and ‘Connectors’
were coined by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point.

[13] Source: Advocacy drives growth – Exclusive research
from the London School of Economics reveals the benefits and pitfalls of
word-of-mouth communication (LSE 2005)

[14] One of the key aspects of training is to change your
workout regularly. Varying the routine
not only avoids boredom but works different muscle groups preventing ‘plateauing’
in body-response. Different programmes
could be created – for example the strength-training work-out cardiovascular
work-out.

[15] Their friends won’t, nobody would be seen dead with
someone else’s colour on their own wall. They’ll want their own unique colour, and they’ll know where to get it!

Standard
internet, social networking, user-generating

Hyped Facebook faces it’s Trough of Disillusionment

Facebook
according to figures released by Nielsen Online, Facebook saw it’s number of users fall 5% to 8.5 million in January from 8.9 million in December, the first drop in user numbers since July 2006 when Nielsen began compiling data on the site.

many have been quick to announce the beginning of the end for the social networking site.  Nic Howell, deputy editor of New Media
Age, has stated that the site is no longer as popular among its core audience of
young people, commenting:

"Social networking is as much about who isn’t on the
site as who is – when Tory MPs and major corporations start profiles on
Facebook, its brand is devalued, driving its core user base into the
arms of newer and more credible alternatives,"
he said.

there’s no doubt that this exclusivity factor has played a role in the plateauing of Facebook’s usage, and to that I’d add the plethora of requests and forced applications it’s users receive, as well as the hack-handed nature of advertising on the site…  in June last year I commented that:

"you can try putting an ad on facebook, but I wouldn’t
recommend it; facebook is a place and space for friends, and a pushed
media impact from a keen brand is an invasion – unless a brand suceeds
in rewarding my just for watching it (for example Virgin Media feeding
me live Big Brother updates, rather than a banner asking me to sign up
now)…"
full post here 

as could have been predicted, I’ve since then seen more banners on Facebook than at a Mardi Gras parade.  but all that aside, does this really mean an inevitable spiral in the popularity of the social networking site?  arguably not.  we’re perhaps more likely witnessing the third phase of Gartner’s Hype Cycle, the Trough of Disillusionment, in which technologies fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable.
Consequently, the press usually abandons the topic and the technology.  sound familiar?

Gartner_hype_cycle
image source: Jeremy Kemp

this would arguably explain why smaller (and relatively newer) social networks continue to see growth – they still find themselves in the post-Trigger growth phase.

so be braced for lots of Facebook and Social networking bashing over the course of 2008.  Mediation predicts that plateau will be reached at some point in the future, with a smaller but more loyal user-base at it’s core.

one last plea to advertisers; we are fueling the trough by using Facebook and it’s counterparts for broadcast banner advertising.  we need to be better than that…  how can a brand’s presence enhance and complement a user experience?  if it can’t, it shouldn’t be there.

Standard
broadcasting, content creating, internet, user-generating, viewing

One In / One Out in Broadcasting UGC

Bbc_threeit’s farewell to the blobs as the Beeb unveils a new look for BBC Three.  the world has changed a fair bit in the five years since it was rebranded from BBC Choice, and the relaunch – at the heart of which is a philosophy that content will be available anytime, anyplace, anywhere – reflects this new world of 360 degree commissioning as well as UGC vs corporate-generated content.

one of the most intriguing elements is the BBC’s ambition to establish content partnerships in "the places
where our audiences spend time" with the aim of making the channels online presence
"the hub of a vibrant network of conversations across the web" (quoting Smon Nelson as reported by Digital Spy via Broadcast magazine, click here for more).  what these places are remains to be seen but Mediation suspects that the likes of Facebook and YouTube may be getting a call soon.

UGC remains for many in TV a topic of the day, and as such the channel will also be calling on viewers to send in clips of themselves introducing
programmes and talking about the channel.  get to those webcams!

the announcement comes hot on the heels of the news that MTV is to drop it’s user-generated content channel MTV Flux.  no reason seems to have been given but no doubt ratings played a part.  there’s an interesting perspective for comms planning and advertising here – namely the importance of channel context…

there are strong embedded expectations of what content you’ll be consuming (and how you’ll be consuming it) when you’re engaged with a particular channel…  despite convergence (of content not necessarily hardware remember), watching TV remains fundamentally different from interacting online.  not matching these expectations may have been the death knell for Flux as a stand-alone TV channel…  the fact that the Flux and it’s community of contributors will live on – integrated into the other channels in the MTV portfolio as well as online – signals that UGC and CGC can sit alongside, but it’s a marriage that has to be carefully managed, a lesson that BBC Three may soon come to learn.

Standard
content creating, internet, social networking, user-generating

Predicting a 2.0 bubble: thru the medium of Socially Networked UGC

interesting and entertaining piece putting forward the argument that recent inflation in the value of dot.com sites – notably those of the social networking variety – have all the hallmarks of the 1999-2000 tech bubble before it burst.

notably, this comment against the current interest and investment in web 2.0-ness, is made thru the medium of user generated content uploaded to a file-sharing portal, which is being spread virally via social networks.  oh, and I’m blogging about it!  so there!

it’s worth pointing out that the value being generated and invested in, isn’t just due to the aggregation of younger audiences that 2.0 delivers (although the ability in a fragmenting world of social networking and 2.0 sites to do this is valuable indeed); rather what’s of massive value to advertisers is the online behavioural and transactional data that comes with these aggregated audiences!

thanks to the rarely-wrong J Smith for the point in the direction of this…

Standard
broadcasting, converging, internet, IPA|ED:three, planning, social networking, user-generating, viewing

Darth Vader and The Evolving Ecology of TV

I was shown the above – somewhat delightful – clip at a conference last week.  a subsequent forwarding on to a colleague reignited a question I gave pause for thought to a year ago when I asked what is TV?  the answer I came to then is the same answer that I stand by now…  that TV is the act of consuming aggregated audiovisual content.

I pointed out at the time that this definition implied that, should you run with it, YouTube is television.  and I believe it is.  in Dec  06 I wrote:

"the aggregation of TV requires content and distribution.  technology
has allowed citizens to produce the former, and the internet has
allowed them to do the latter.  we are all – should we wish to be –
content aggregators.  we are all budding broadcasters.  and a
generation is learning to watch TV aggregated by commercial entities as
well as fellow citizens."
mediation post Weds 6th December 06

an obvious question then in all of this is – who is to do the aggregation?  …commercial broadcasters or – via PVR on TV / subscriptions on YouTube / wall posts on Facebook – viewers themselves?  in negotiating the future of media and communications – the aim of this blog – we have to accept the inevitable conclusion that it is of course both.

in the evolving ecology of TV (in both the broad and narrowcasting sense) the question in not who aggregates, but who – at a given moment in time – we want to aggregate for us.  its a question of context…  Saturday evening on the sofa is very different to 30mins web surfing on a Friday lunchtime.  as a viewer, my individual needs vary massively over the course of a day or week.

commercial broadcasters and internet unilateralists continue to be at war over the issue of who aggregates.  the battle is pointless.  in the year since I wrote my original ‘what is TV’ post, commercial TV has been under what seems to be continuous fire, not from futurologists predicting their demise, but from a media who have witnessed compromise after compromise of viewer trust.

if broadcast TV thinks it needs to win a perceived war against the internet by cutting corners and taking shortcuts in order to be as popular as possible, then it is fundamentally flawed on two fronts.  one; there is no war – both commercial and viewer-aggregated TV are here to stay, and two; the role of commercial broadcasters in this new ecology is not compete with YouTube by being as popular as possible, but to inspire it by being as original as possible…

the role of broadcast TV is to be the source of original, intriguing, inventive, surprising and high-quality content.  content that demands to sit alongside it’s online counterparts.  as Stephen Poliakoff comments in today’s MediaGuardian, "if you commission it, the viewers do turn up."

…just as millions turned up to see Darth Vader in cinemas in Empire Strikes back in 1980 (and on TV and DVD ever since)  …and just as millions have turned up to see the clip at the top of this post.  together they’re a great example of this new relationship: content originally produced commercially by Fox and Lucasarts as high-quality content, remixed by DoomBlake for fun, as parody, as art.

both are entertaining, and both have their place in the new TV ecology.  it’s notable that DoomBlake’s recreative remix is  entertaining because of the original context as defined by Lucas’s commercial creative vision.  these content siblings need each other – one as source material, and the other as a way to stay contemporary in a changing world.

Standard