brand extending, branding, campaigning, co-creating, community-building, connecting, earning, gaming, owning, praising, social media-ising, user-generating

Big Planning and Big Thinking: How Bendigo and Adelaide Bank use owned & earned media to deploy a little utility into the world

Got a big idea that you want to bring to life? Create a plan, share it and make it happen with help from the PlanBig community

so the lovely and awesome Zaac posted a link to my wall of the above effort from Bendigo and Adelaide Bank.  it's called PlanBig and, in it's own words, its…

"… a way for people to get together to make things happen and make a difference.  We [Bendigo and Adelaide Bank] believed that there was some real value in giving people the chance to come together in one place to talk about ideas, share inspiration, offer advice or help make things happen for themselves or someone else.  PlanBig brings together the experiences, knowledge and expertise of people with different skills from all walks of life and all ages to help each other get ideas kick started."

it's a delightful and instinctively attractive platform, which elegantly ticks a range of boxes including – amongst others – socialisation, co-creation, crowdsourcing and gamification.  it also has a elegant and seamless execution that connects with the Book and other social platforms…  the badges-as-reward effort has been borrowed from FourSquare, as has the Book's Like concept (in fact the functionality is a bit like a social network functionality greatest hits, which isn't a bad thing – better to use functionality with which we're familiar … makes it more, well, functional).

as the site observes, "Bendigo and Adelaide Bank feel so strongly about helping people realise their dreams, they’ve been doing it in local communities for over 150 years" … so this platform is just a natural extension of a brand proposition that's been in market for over a century.

it's also another example of the owned and earned media combo (note the absence of bought media) to create (1) utility (2) meaningful connections with a community of people and (3) content ripe for the amplification – if even a few of these ideas get big it will be marketing gold-dust.  all of which makes a great deal more sense to me than buying a shedload of ads telling people what competitive lending rates you have.

this genuinely feels like a brand / product extension with sociable and marketable assets built in from the ground up.  it's a communication for people, by people, and its infinitely better for it.  good on 'em.

Standard
manifesto writing

The end or the beginning?: Our manifesto for media, and what happens to it now…

manifesto_wordlea Wordle of the articles of the media manifesto that were written at Mumbrella360 on Tuesday

so it’s written.  one last huge thank you to Toby and Tara and everyone else at PHD … to the most awesome of group leaders Rob Pyne, Alistair Henderson, Howard Parry-Husbands, David Fish, Laura Peck, Georgia Thomas, Kerry Field, Toby Hack, Vicki Connerty, James Larman, Robert Leach, Mike Wilson, Olly Wilton and Eric Faulkner … and to everyone in the room on Tuesday who gave so much energy, insight, passion and belief to writing this:

manifesto_logo

What We Believe:

On People:

  • We believe everyone should have the time to, and take ownership for, learning and sharing knowledge.
  • We believe we need to start marketing the benefits of working in media & marketing across all industries.
  • We believe work and life balance should be a critical KPI.
  • We believe we need to re-assign value to creativity as a key component of EBIT.
  • We believe every business should define its own values around fun and what balance looks like.
  • We believe it is the fundamental duty of every manager to actively coach and mentor their people and encourage individual contribution without inhibition.

On Post-Broadcast Planning:

  • We believe measurement should move from opportunity to see to opportunity to influence.
  • We believe in mobilizing future decisions not justifying past ones. We should embrace intuition.
  • We believe that planning as we all know it needs to change and that the responsibility for planning must reside with the client.
  • We believe the best outcomes will come from more time and more TLC.
  • We believe in healthy, collaborative debate, as an essential start point of the planning process.

On Agency and Media Owner Relationships:

  • We believe transparency of information will deliver more effective results.
  • We believe in quarterly briefing to media owners to share key client objectives.
  • We believe that there are three people in this media marriage, and that that’s a good thing!
  • We believe there should be a minimum quality or standard for briefing from media agencies and responses from media companies.
  • We believe open access to information leads to better briefing and better work for clients.

On Social Media:

  • We believe social is not just a media, but a behaviour.
  • We believe that social must be an ongoing conversation, not a one-off campaign.
  • We believe we must keep educating clients about social media and what it can deliver.
  • We believe we should be using social data to inform every communications decision.
  • We believe social media can deliver success against traditional metrics but shouldn’t be judged by them.
  • We believe clients need to create a framework that allows them to select the agencies that are best placed to deliver business objectives and collaborate together.

On Client and Agency Relationships:

  • We believe that briefs should be developed in collaboration between clients and agencies.
  • We believe businesses must be clear and honest about what they want.
  • We believe that agencies have a responsibility to educate clients on how advertising works.
  • We believe that no one enjoys pitches.
  • We believe we need a new pitch process to identify the right people and the right ideas for the business.

On Data, Technology and Systems:

  • We believe self-regulation is in the industry’s best interest, but is too idealistic and therefore government needs to be involved.
  • We believe data language must be standardized so that agencies and clients can speak together to put consumers at the heart of planning.
  • We believe in joint ownership of data between consumers and industry for greater value, transparency and better quality data.

On Remuneration:

  • We believe we should replace the commission system.
  • We believe there should be a model that rewards time spent, output and results.
  • We believe we should foster transparency and education between agency and clients.
  • We believe solving this issue will attract the best talent and deliver the best results for clients.

…..

it’s so strange and awesome seeing them up there…  the sentiment of some of the articles, like ‘We believe in mobilizing future decisions not justifying past ones’ is challenging, constructive and intuitive all at once.

it’s a diverse and broad list…  implementing some is merely changing your perspective, implementing others (‘We believe we should replace the commission system’ for example) are a much longer project.  some need evolving – the article of belief around social media measurement for example should, I expect, be developed to incorporate a preferred metric or set of metrics for social media investment.

not everyone will agree with all of the articles, but then that is rather the point.  they are there to act as a shared point of view, not a statement of the obvious.  what matters now is what we do with this list?  our manifesto can remain the tangible output of a Mumbrella360 session.  but it could also be a something that galvanises us more quickly into action…

there may still be some debate around whether or not we’re moving fast enough – this was certainly the sentiment of the conference panel yesterday in response to my question on inertia in the industry.  but if the above manifesto proves anything it’s that there is an appetite for change from across the industry

please add your comments and opinions to the question of ‘what happens now?’ to the comment stream on Mumbrella… what we do with our collective appetite for change, and what happens to our manifesto now, is up to us …

Standard
manifesto writing

Nearly there: The workstreams for our Manifesto, and a reminder – courtesy of Creative Sydney – of just why they’re so important

nearly there.  the above little effort begins to explore some of the topics that we'll be debating next week when we collaborate to write a manifesto for the media industry.  an manifesto that at the very least aligns us on what we believe, but which hopefully we set a direction for change…  change which I have never felt is more necessary…

listening to some of the talks at Vivid's Creative Sydney festival reminded me just how mainstream an evolved position of marketing has come.  observations like 'you can't equate marketing success to sales', or 'people don't want to watch advertising', or 'the power of community can do more for a brand than any billion dollar campaign' were made not by niche, off-the-wall marketers – but rather by people building brands like etsy, Intel and future shorts…

these brands and marketers are the new mainstream – the danger is that far from being ahead of the curve our industry's collective point of view gets left behind it.  on Tuesday we get a chance to debate and discuss that – across seven topics:

  • people – attracting, nurturing and retaining talent
  • remuneration – from transparency to media commissions, getting paid what we're worth
  • tech, systems and data – making the most of automation and trading desks, as well as asking 'who owns the data?'
  • agency and media owner relations – time for a new contract? expectations, behaviours and access
  • agency and client relations – education, expectations and getting paid for pitches
  • planning in a post-broadcast world – moving on the planning paradigm for an on-demand world
  • social media – the new gold rush or 21st Century snake oil?  the future or a temporary distraction?  and who should even plan it?

if you're at Mumbrella360 on Tuesday it would be great to see you and hear your voice added to those who will be seeing if we can start a journey towards genuine change.  whether we do or not is up to us, but perhaps being there and talking together, for now, will be enough.  and as the above video hopefully indicates, it should be fun too!  see you next Tuesday.

Standard
connecting

Its a small world and we are all connected: why exposing ideas is exposing, and why its important

Inspirationthe welcome note at The Church in Crows Nest, which rather sets you into the right frame of mind

I had the pleasure of spending today with some clients coming up with ideas.  just that.  have some great game-changing ideas.

I was struck by the above message on the way in…  that connectedness = meaningful change beyond our immediate sphere of influence.

we don't often enough ponder the significance of our connectedness.  we get that we're connected – we're reminded daily of that.  but rather that our connectedness is the engine that permits and enables the spread, growth and development of ideas.

ideas get exposed, but that also means that they are exposed … to other people.

I had a hard lesson in that these last few days.  that our ideas don't live in echo chambers.  if we want to see change, if we want to make things happen, then we have to expose how we want to create that change to people whose opinion and action we seek to influence…  but that means engaging, with people and their opinions…

it's a small world and we are all connected.  the opportunity and responsibility to create meaningful change is ours for the taking…  and we shouldn't shy from the debate and opinion that comes our way when we put ourselves out there…  this doesn't diminish us, this makes our ideas – and therefore us – better…

Standard
manifesto writing

Your debate starts here: Which topics should we debate at Mumbrella360’s Media Manifesto

manifesto_logo
so next week will see a session at Mumbrella360 write – live and in realtime – a change manifesto for the media industry.  it’s an experiment, and I’m nervous excited, but looking forward to it and really grateful to all the people who are giving their time and energy to take part…

several workstreams in the session will debate a different topic of interest … what those topics of interest are, is up to you…  this is the shortlist:

  • People – attracting, nurturing and retaining media talent
  • Remuneration – from transparency to media commissions, getting paid what we’re worth
  • Tech, systems and data – making the most of automation, trading desks and information, as well as debating who owns the data
  • Agency and Media Owner relationships – is it time for a new contract? Expectations, behaviours and access in the 21st Century
  • Agency and Client relationships – education, expectations and getting paid for pitches
  • Planning in a post-broadcast world – moving the planning paradigm on for an on-demand world
  • Procurement, pitch consultants and auditors – necessary evil or welcome umpires?
  • Content creation – specialist silo or everyone\’s remit?
  • Who owns the big idea? – who is best placed to generate, lead and deliver the big ideas for brands?
  • Accountability – at what point are we drowning in data to prove results at every step of the process?
  • Creative Agency relationships – as the turfs merge together again, who should be doing what and how do we get the most out of each other?
  • Social media? – the new gold rush or 21st Century Snake Oil, the future or a temporary distraction? And who should even plan it?

please take five mins to jump to the Mumbrella website to vote for which five you would most like to see discussed and debated next Tuesday; the debate … your debate, starts here.

Standard
advertising, broadcasting, data planning, debating, predicting, television

Media lessons from Sydney Writers Festival: or what Wikileaks and Sneakerpedia have in common

SWF 2011
we've been warned: Paul Gilding, Naomi Oreskes, Curt Stager discuss acting on Climate change as Sam Mostyn facilitates

so Friday evening was spent at the brilliant Sydney Writers Festival at Sydney's Town Hall.  the two sessions, 'who's afraid of Wikileaks?' and the climate-change-themed 'you've been warned' had illuminating things to say on a diversity of subjects but I was particularly struck by what they had to say, explicitly or otherwise, on the subject on media.

a key element in the first session was a specific question posed to the panel on whether Wikileaks is a media organisation or a political organisation.  the panel were agreed in the main that Wikileaks is a media organisation…  that they exist to aggregate, organise and make available information for distribution.

the panel were of the opinion that Wikileaks is non-political in the sense that what happens as a result of the information they release is up not to Wikileaks but rather to those who consume its content.  Wikileaks were, the panel argued, political only in the sense that Assange is a fervent believer in transparency of information, and its ability to hold corrupt organisations and governments to account.

it occured to me that the idea of 'becomng a media organistion' wasn't limited to Wikileaks…  the model – of aggregating useful information and then distributing it – is essentially an owned and then earned media combo.  and any organisation could adopt it…

The greatest sneaker archiving project is about to begin; Footlocker's SneakerPedia

there are parallels to what Footlocker are doing with the rather glorious Sneakerpedia; aggregate information – with utility – into an owned media space.  then use that to stimulate earned media (3,300 Twitter followers and counting) … bought media could come later – amplifying Sneakerpedia's greatest hits or rarest items in print ads, or short form sneaker documentary content on TV, but it doesn't necessarily have to.  Sneakerpedia, like Wikipedia, is an owned and earned media combo – and that's all it has to be: the mechanics of media now not only permit that but in many ways favour it…

because bought media is developing a serious credibilty issue.  the rise of owned media and emergence of tangible earned media has put bought media – as exemplified by the ad – into the spotlight, and the glare seems to be hurting it…

in the second session of the writers festival, a wonderful panel consisting of Paul Gilding, Naomi Oreskes, Curt Stager, Sam Mostyn discussed the hard choices we have to make now to preserve our planet.  Oreskes described how the climate change movement had been undermined (like the anti-smoking lobby before it) by an argument of credible doubt.  the proponents had used bought media to amplify their message to a broad audience.

Oreskes was asked why the pro-climate camp hadn't adopted the same tactics?  her response was stark: "advertising exists to sell people things they don't need, scientists reject that [advertising] can be used to sell climate solutions" … the message is clear, bought media lacks the credibility of owned and earned.

this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our industry – the reality is that we have shouted our messages to people for over half a century.  we have created as a result several generations of ambivalence towards our branded messaging, the result of which is now not only passive resilience from audiences, but outright rejection of not only the message but the media delivery channels themselves…

this point is important.  Channel 4 Chief Executive David Abraham noted in his RTS speech this week that according to Channel 4 research, "about two-thirds of all 'TV audiovisual content' viewing time – across TV, PC and mobile – will be 'tracked intelligently' in some way by 2020"… our working assumption should be that such tracking will only be able to be utilised if people permit us to use it.  if they are similarly minded to Oreskes, that may set up a tricky negotiation between our industry and our audiences.

Standard
branding, cinema, connecting, futuregazing, internet, IPA|ED:one, opinionating, thinking

An opportunity not to be missed: what Tiffany Shlain’s ‘Connected’ means for brands as the internet transforms us and our world

so last night, thanks to Disco Davo (thanks Disco), I was lucky enough to be amongst a cinema of people gathered to watch an Aussie-first and unique screening of a movie called Connected: An Autoblogography about Love, Death & Technology.

organised through social media club sydney in conjunction with AMP's AmplifyFestival, Tiffany Shlain's (@tiffanyshlain) film is a narrative on how the internet is fundamentally changing us, interspersed with a personal account of a year in her life.  the result is a fascinating polemic on the nature of our interconnectedness as a species.

much was well-trodden territory for this blog … but there were two aspects I hadn't heard before that I found particularly interesting.  I hope that Shlain won't object to me sharing here…

one, Shlain described how in her father's book 'The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image' he made the connection between how the invention of the written / printed word had coincided with the rise of men in social, political and commercial circles.  he argued that this was because the written word is processed by the left side of the brain, which is more male.

last century's 'iconic revolution' (Shlain's term) – which saw imagery and images became a more predominant form of communication – coincided with increased predominance of females in society.  images are processed by the right side of the brain which is … more female.

the interesting conclusion is that the internet, with it's heady mix of words and images, is processed more of less equally by both sides of the brain, and is therefore a mass-communication channel that isn't biased towards one gender or the other…

the other aspect I found fascinating is how the brain and our body chemistry is predisposed to both connectedness and the pleasure hit we get from the stream of information on the internet.  when we connect, we release oxytocin – which evokes feelings of contentment, reductions in anxiety, and feelings of calmness and security.  Wikipedia notes that 'many studies have already shown a correlation of oxytocin with human bonding, increases in trust, and decreases in fear' … so the more we connect, the less anxious we are, and the internet allows us to feel more connected than ever before…

dopamine is released when we experience something pleasurable, and encourages us to keep performing the action ad-infinitum (as there's no diminishing return from dopamine).  Shlain's interesting observation is that – as dopamine is released when we get a 'hit' of new information … we are becoming addicted to the internet (or more specifically the infinite content that it gives us access to)

if you get a chance to catch the movie I urge you to do so … it's a fascinating and beautiful experience.  and it left me thinking about the role of brands and advertising in Shlain's interconnected and interdependent world.  from one perspective advertising and media fuelled the worst of the excessive consumption society that is now placing sustained pressure on our environment…

…but on the other I can't help but think that Shlain's hypothesis presents us with a clear opportunity, an opportunity defined by a simple question that I can't shake.  in an inter-dependent world where billions of people increasingly connect, communicate and coordinate as communities, why do we continue to so readily seek to engage with individuals?

in an inter-dependent world, the only thing that matters is shared agendas and communities of interest.  and more specifically, what matters most is an opportunity for brands to fuel – rather than interrupt – their interconnectedness and interdependence.

its utility, but its more than that … its potentially brands becoming a key and fundamental part of a dopamine and oxytocin-fuelled revolution in how we live on earth…  it's tantalising enough to warrant asking what you would want of the brands with which you work?  …  for them to be part of humanity's next giant leap, or reconciled to history as part of the iconic revolution that for a while so influenced our culture and behaviour?

Standard
advertising, broadcasting, marketing

Time for an Ad: How Groupon and Starbucks are doing things the right way around

Groupons new ad … geotargeted realtime promotions never sounded so straight-forward

Priscilla, who sends tweets from @thoughtcloud, (thanks Priscilla) pointed me in the direction the above video from Groupon, which – as she neatly points out – can be described as mobile + scheduled coupons + mobile micropayments = awesomeness.

the whole proposition, of aggregating local promotions which are geotargeted and delivered in realtime, is in many ways the culmination of a host of recent developments in the mobile space…  a culmination that Groupon – with a view to IPOness – are keen to amplify as much as possible.  it's for perhaps this reason that the company – which has been built from a connections perspective hereto on peer-demanded communications and word of mouth, has put together … an ad.

both regular readers will be familiar with this blog's attitude towards 'the ad' – that 20th Century invention which came to be synonymous with advertising.  our continued reliance on the broadcast interruption model that forms the media basis for adverts remains one of the key limiting factors in brands and marketers embracing a communications age of user-centricity, community and utility.

but Groupon's effort is perhaps a reminder that 'the ad' does have it's place in a 21st Century communications ecosystem.  I can't imagine a neater or more compelling way to communicate realtime geotargeted promotions and offers…  a simple, neat encapsulation of a message and a reminder of what made 'the ad' so predominant in 20th Century marketing communications.

and Groupon aren't alone.  Starbucks have for several years now adopted a community and reward-based marketing approach.  this blog noted in April 2009 that Starbucks were offering free syrup shots for life when you signed up to a Starbucks Card … why?  because – and this was a direct paraphrase from the Bucks' call centre – the brand was looking to what it could, given the (then) current economic climate, for its existing customers.

the last two years have seen a plethora of offers and bonuses for existing customers be deployed in store.  all of which are communicated on regular emails that I'm happy to receive.  like this one that I got today…

Starbucks_frap_mail_2one of the regular eDM's I receive from the Bucks

the mail contains the usual offers and updates, but also invites me to 'watch their new ad' and note that "We're excited that Frappuccino® is on the big screen" …which struck me as an unusual turn of phrase.  excited that they're on the screen.  they're Starbucks.  that pretty big company that turned themselves around with a focus on customer service and involvement in their brand.  why the excitement over an ad?

Starbucks_frap_ad_2

Starbucks_frap_ad.jpg

Starbucks_frap_ad_3 Starbucks' have a new frappuccino ad … and they're excited

but I guess that it's precisely that focus on daily delivery of quality and service that makes their presence in the broadcast stream an exception.  it's a rarity and therefore a novelty for the brand.  even one as big as Starbucks.  and the way I see it both Groupon and Starbucks have this exactly the right way around…

for them, broadcast ads aren't the rule, they are the exception.  and those ads are therefore all the better and more valuable for it.  not for these brands the shout at the millions whether they're listening or not.  not for these brands is broadcast interruption the modus operandi.

rather, daily delivery of value and service and utility and innovation … and when there is something genuinely new, or different, or compelling, they permit themselves to broadcast and interrupt.  only then.  conversation first and as default.  adverts when, and only when, what they have to say is of sufficient value to those on the receiving end.  if only all brands had their priorities in this so very correct order…

Standard
attributing, measuring, tracking

Attributing the Sum of the Parts: Does Cascade point to a future of all media impact attribution?

Cascade, a first-of-its-kind tool analyses of the structures which underlie sharing activity on the web

Will Salkeld posted the above video to his blog a couple of weeks ago.  it's a demonstration of a new kind of tool, called Cascade, which allows for precise analysis of the structures which underlie sharing activity on the web.  it links browsing behavior on a site to sharing activity, thereby constructing a detailed picture of how information propagates through the social media space…

whilst questioning the practical value of the tool, describing Cascade as an "unnecessary complication to an already muddled social media landscape", Salkeld does observe that the tool could have specific and tangible benefits:

"tools like this could cut out much of the guess work that occurs when trying to determine who appropriate influencers should be. Knowing which people will propagate information or subvert it to their liking in advance will mean improved economies of scale, because the most appropriate influencers will already be apparent. The beauty of it is that as data accumulates, assumptions become more accurate!"

quite right too.  but the ambition for a generation of tools like Cascade shouldn't be limited to the Twittersphere or even digital realms.  the opportunity, and The Grail for media connections planning and measurement, is an all-media equivalent of Cascade; a tool that measure and allows interpretation of how communications spread through networks and populations.

this is of value to brands and marketers, who have obvious interest in understanding which communications lead to (sales) effects in market.  but its also of huge interest to agencies.  when you're paid by results, as bonus and increasingly base fees are, knowing – and proving – which impacts contributed to the sale becomes valuable information indeed.

in online its called attribution modelling.  how do you attribute the value of the end sale to the various and constituent media impacts that let to it.  100% of attribution shouldn't go to the last impact (often Google) – this is just the last in a series of impacts that contributed to, and deserve 'credit' for part of the sale.

as planners, the idea that we could model attribution across multiple impacts and channels is intriguing at the least.  and as media becomes digitised, the ability to track the impacts becomes tantalisingly feasible.  as the pursuit of planning Grail's go, attribution modelling across channels is more than worth some time with a shrubbery or two.

Standard
creating, curating, experiencing, learning

Making History Personal: How Port Arthur curates individual paths through its content

Port_arthur_card_1a playing card: your invitation to explore Port Arthur exhibitions and information

upon receiving your entry ticket to Port Arthur's visitor centre in Tasmania you receive one of the above cards.  the card is one of a couple of dozen or so playing cards, and each person visiting the site gets a different one.  mine was the Queen of Diamonds.

Port_arthur_card_2the Queen of Diamonds: my card invites and allows me to take a personal journey through the attraction's exhibitions

much more than a souvenir however, each card invites it's owner to take a journey through the visitors centre following in the footsteps of one of the inmates of two centuries ago, when the port was Australia's second penal colony in then Van Diemen's Land.

each room in the exhibit is tailored to allowing you to exploring a specific journey for your card; a journey that reflects the actual journey taken by a specific inmate in the facility hundeds of years ago.  what was their name and where did they arrive from?  were they well behaved or not?  were they punished or rewarded?  did they take on a trade?  did they ever leave the facility?

I loved this approach for three reasons.  the first is that it takes something that could be quite rational, remote and, well, historic and makes it personal and personalised.  approaching the visitor's centre and its exhibitions from the point of view that someone – a real person – actually went on this journey changes your mindset towards how you approach it.  you are more involved, more connected.  you care more.

the second-reason I love this customer solution is because of how this approach mitigates choice-overload.  it tackles that feeling many of us must be familiar with when you walk into a museum and think… where to start?  and then where?  … non of this here.  you are presented with a clear path and invited to ignore some exhibits.  this doesn't compromise your visit, in fact it actually liberates it.

but the reason that I most love this approach is the extent to which – explicitly or implicitly – it invites conversation, a point made by Davey too when I was chatting with her this morning.  when a group of people goes through the visitor centre none will take the same journey.  there will be knowledge gaps that the group will fill through discussion and conversation?  where did you go?  who was your inmate?  did you see X?  these gaps, what I call knowledge differentials, fuel conversations immediately after the experience but also, by making the navigation tangible (the playing card) they can also extend into the future.

I hope that Port Arther build on what they have.  mobile and tablet functionality now allows them to take this tailored personalised approach to a whole new level.  you could choose your character in advance and then download the journey with audio that you could listen to on your phone as you tour the centre.  social functionality would allow you to share your journey with your social networks in real-time as you go through the exhibit – or share stories with strangers who went on the same journey.

a playing card.  a simple and elegant thought that added disproportinate value to my visit; and exactly what every experience should be – personal, curated and social.

Standard