Via: Online University
Friday
Tuesday
Saturday
55,000 hours of Warcraft
We've done a lot of posts about the popularity of gaming over the last decade. The video game industry has been bigger (from a revenue standpoint) than Hollywood for a few years now. Teen boys are most likely to be addicted gamers and have been known to play for hours on end.
This video came out a few weeks ago about a kid who played World of Warcraft for almost 5 years straight. The video is him deleting his profile, and every charter, virtual good and item that he gained during that period. It's well done and quickly went viral.
The game mentality is something that is extremely interesting - specifically around levels. Getting to the 'next level' breaks down your task into smaller chunks. You focus on one task, accomplish it and then move onto the next one (almost like episodes of a TV series). Where games get addictive is the quest for the next task, the next accomplishment and the next character. It's a form of storytelling that is extremely interesting, and addictive.
I remember as a kid playing Final Fantasy 6. At that time, the game kept track of the amount of time that a user spent. When, one day, I read that I'd spent 220 hours playing, I figured that it was about time I went outside. Not many games (as far as I can tell) actually put trackers in like this one - like Casino's with window's, if you know how long you've been playing, you might not care about getting to the next level.
Link here to the story.
This video came out a few weeks ago about a kid who played World of Warcraft for almost 5 years straight. The video is him deleting his profile, and every charter, virtual good and item that he gained during that period. It's well done and quickly went viral.
The game mentality is something that is extremely interesting - specifically around levels. Getting to the 'next level' breaks down your task into smaller chunks. You focus on one task, accomplish it and then move onto the next one (almost like episodes of a TV series). Where games get addictive is the quest for the next task, the next accomplishment and the next character. It's a form of storytelling that is extremely interesting, and addictive.
I remember as a kid playing Final Fantasy 6. At that time, the game kept track of the amount of time that a user spent. When, one day, I read that I'd spent 220 hours playing, I figured that it was about time I went outside. Not many games (as far as I can tell) actually put trackers in like this one - like Casino's with window's, if you know how long you've been playing, you might not care about getting to the next level.
Link here to the story.
Thursday
IBM Watson - Prove your innovation
Not a long preamble on this one. Just a cool concept with some great tech.
Monday
Would you pay to use Facebook?
I was reading a recent study on Mashable about research that was done into Twitter. It turns out that zero percent of people in the survey would be willing to actually pay for the service. Is this surprising?
To be honest, I'm not sure.
Over the last few weeks, I've been thinking a lot about the number of 'layers' in my own digital life. For example, every morning I wake up and open 6 tabs in about 3 seconds in Chrome - Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Reader. I then go through the tabs checking messages and what has happened - responding when I need to.
Then - and only then - I hit the normal information sites - news mostly (NY Times, HuffPo, Globe, BBC) and read any article that catches my eye.
And, of course, on the way to work I check my BlackBerry, continue reading on my iPad and check in when I'm extremely bored on Foursqure.
Question is, do I really need all of this stuff? And what would I actually pay to use these services?
Let's start with the ones I'm already on the fence with - Foursquare is out because I don't really care where people are and being the Mayor of my own house isn't cool. I also hate the Twitter feed integration and think that my stream would be a lot more interesting if people linked to content they liked vs. the Starbucks that they just entered.
If I had to pay for email, I'd ditch the Hotmail account. It was my first and I've had it for about 12 years but I could easily switch everything over to Gmail and be happy (although I do like keeping hotmail around for Spam related requests / new site tests).
So now we're down to four - Gmail, Reader, Facebook and Twitter.
To be honest, Twitter and my Reader do - somewhat - serve the same purpose. I use them both to curate the links that I get and to keep me updated. In a head to head battle, Reader loses to Twitter on this one - less functionality and ability to connect (no..I don't count Google Buzz as an advantage here)
Now, I realise that Gmail vs. Facebook vs. Twitter isn't really a fair comparison. Especially because on Facebook you can do so much more than the other two combined (ie. play games, post multiple types of content, send private messages, etc).
I love Gmail but have a work account so that could suffice (although I do like the idea of private emails). But for the sake of the post, Gmail is out.
That leaves the two hottest social networks right now. So what's my choice?
It would have to be Facebook. More content, better friends and less desire to continually post whatever it is I'm doing at the moment.
But if Facebook charged me, would I pay to use it?
I don't think so.
Let's take a best case scenario. A one-time annual fee for usage. Maybe $12 a year. I'd consider paying this if it meant no more targeted ads, strict privacy controls and limited application access to my data. But to just keep using the same old services? I don't think so.
The point is that in the age of free, what would you actually pay to continue to use? And if you wouldn't pay for a service, do you really need it?
Think about it another way. How much is your time worth? With the average Facebook user spending 30 minutes a day with the site, that's 210 minutes a week (3.5 hours). If you're on minimum wage at about $7/hour, you're spending about $25 a week to hang on the site.
Is it worth it?
Thursday
Fat Dove Guy: Old Spice Response Video
One of the beautiful things about the digital world is that the playing field is level. It is just as easy (if not easier) for consumers to broadcast themselves, and create conversations around brands.
This video response below to the Old Spice guy may or may not be sponsored content - I hope it is not for a few reasons:
1)If this is a consumer participating on his own I'm curious to see how Old Spice responds. The reason that I am curious is that a "brand" entering into a conversation of this nature with a consumer participating on their own could be a mine field even for the geniuses at Weiden & Kennedy. Why? Because the consumer doesn't have the brand restrictions or reputation to uphold. The consumer is only constrained by their own personal morals, values and character. They could, in my opinion, cross lines that the brand may not - which in a battle of wits is possibly an upper-hand that allows the consumer (and their brand of choice) to be victorious.
2) I perceive Dove as a leader and Old Spice as a challenger in the body wash category. If Dove put the time and effort into facing Old Spice head-on then that automatically positions Old Spice as a category leader in the eyes of anyone who sees this response.
Found on The Curious Brain (still one of my favourite sites to visit).
This video response below to the Old Spice guy may or may not be sponsored content - I hope it is not for a few reasons:
1)If this is a consumer participating on his own I'm curious to see how Old Spice responds. The reason that I am curious is that a "brand" entering into a conversation of this nature with a consumer participating on their own could be a mine field even for the geniuses at Weiden & Kennedy. Why? Because the consumer doesn't have the brand restrictions or reputation to uphold. The consumer is only constrained by their own personal morals, values and character. They could, in my opinion, cross lines that the brand may not - which in a battle of wits is possibly an upper-hand that allows the consumer (and their brand of choice) to be victorious.
2) I perceive Dove as a leader and Old Spice as a challenger in the body wash category. If Dove put the time and effort into facing Old Spice head-on then that automatically positions Old Spice as a category leader in the eyes of anyone who sees this response.
Found on The Curious Brain (still one of my favourite sites to visit).
Tuesday
Civic or Communal value: What does your campaign deliver?
I think we all know that marketing has changed. It is not about the message anymore but it is about the value you bring.
An interesting TED talk by Clay Shirky discusses how the world is creating value with our cognitive surplus, and this value comes in one of two forms; civic or communal.
Now that you have seen the video how will you utilize your next campaign to benefit from this cognitive surplus? How will you design your campaign to provide intrinsic motivation to benefit from the generosity of your community? And finally, will you design your campaign to create communal value (Doritos) or civic value (Pepsi refresh)?
An interesting TED talk by Clay Shirky discusses how the world is creating value with our cognitive surplus, and this value comes in one of two forms; civic or communal.
Now that you have seen the video how will you utilize your next campaign to benefit from this cognitive surplus? How will you design your campaign to provide intrinsic motivation to benefit from the generosity of your community? And finally, will you design your campaign to create communal value (Doritos) or civic value (Pepsi refresh)?
Sunday
Ads can't save bad brands
I went to see the play Enron last night in London. To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of the show but one scene really stuck with me. As the second act started, they played this Enron TV spot:
For those of you who remember, Enron was the company that set records. The most well-known being the largest bankruptcy in the history of the US. Thousands of workers were laid off, lost all their stock and were essentially ruined by a tight group of senior management who developed new 'products' that cheated the financial system.
For those of you who remember, Enron was the company that set records. The most well-known being the largest bankruptcy in the history of the US. Thousands of workers were laid off, lost all their stock and were essentially ruined by a tight group of senior management who developed new 'products' that cheated the financial system.
What interested me most, though, wasn't the scandal or the corruption. But the ad.
To be honest, the spot reminded me a lot of Apple's iconic Think Different. It's well-written and has a montage featuring normal people and brilliant ones. When I watched it last night for the first time, I tried to put myself in the shoes of someone watching this in 2000.
If you were just graduating from a top US school, looking for work and saw this spot, you'd probably consider Enron. You'd want to know more and (based on their successful financial earnings at the time), you'd probably want to work there and get a ton of stock options.
It's ads like these that get people into these brands. Nobody really knew how flawed Enron was - the agency that made this spot certainty didn't - but the ads helped keep the brand afloat. It was the idea that they were successful that kept the brand alive for so long. Not just the fake earnings sheets or the profit reports, but the belief that everyone involved with the company couldn't do any wrong.
We all want strong brands. Just remember that ads can't save bad companies. In fact, they can protect them. But only for so long...
Wednesday
I found this classified ad on AdRants this morning. It was found on Craiglist for a Dove photo shoot.DOVE "REAL WOMEN" PRINT CASTING JUNE 28-30, 2010 in NYC
ABSOLUTELY NO ACTRESSES / MODELS OR REALITY SHOW PARTICIPANTS or ANY ONE CARRYING A HEADSHOT!!!!
REAL WOMEN ONLY!
LOOKING FOR 3-4 REAL WOMEN for a DOVE PRINT CAMPAIGN!
AGES 35-45, CAUCASIAN, HISPANIC, AFRICAN AMERICAN, & ASIAN!
SHOOT: SUNDAY, JULY 18 in NYC! MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR THE SHOOT!
RATE: $500 for Shoot date & if selected for Ad Campaign (running 2011) you will be paid $4000!
USAGE: 3 years unlimited print & web usage in N. America Only
YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THE CAMPAIGN IN A TOWEL!
BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN!
MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS!
Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic.
Great Sparkling Personalities. Beautiful Smiles! A DOVE GIRL!!!
STYLISH AND COOL!
Beautiful HAIR & SKIN is a MUST!!!
PLEASE SUBMIT SNAPSHOTS of FACE & BODY ASAP & WE WILL CALL YOU IN FOR A CASTING NEXT WEEK 6/28-6/30 in NYC!
urbanproddovecasting@gmail.com
AdRants rightfully blasts it for being off brand and horribly written but I want to blast it for something else.
Why are they using Craiglist to find the lucky few for their photo shoot? They have a community of over 150,000 on Facebook alone . Why not reward your fans by giving them the opportunity? I checked and the ad wasn't posted on any of the corporate looking pages. This approach would be found in any Marketing 101 for the digital age book and probably in the first couple chapters.
How does a brand like Dove miss this? How does an organization that has done some great work, shown innovation in both their product development, messaging and approach to building relationships with consumers miss this?
Tuesday
Monday
What if BPGlobalPR was created by a BP competitor?
If you haven't followed the @BPGlobalPR Twitter account yet, you're missing what might be one of the most talked about Twitter streams on the planet right now. The account, created by a private citizen who likes to be called 'Leroy Stick', consists of dark, humorous tweets that use the oil spill tragedy and shed the worst possible light on the company responsible for it. In recent weeks, many PR groups have been debating how BP should handle this fake account. The company recently asked Leroy to add that the account was a 'fake' in the bio (which he did) but has not made any further moves to have the account removed (it currently has over 150K followers and Tweets quite regularly).
As a brand digital guy, I've been thinking a lot about what I would do if I were working for BP right now. I think that their strategy is OK - removing the account (or trying to do so) would keep the story going, add more followers and encourage many more fake accounts to sprout out of the woodwork. Placing to much of a focus on the account, getting legal involved to shut down something that is already popular and placing more of an emphasis on the account is only cause for more trouble. BP also needs to keep acknowledging that this fake, popular Twitter account isn't the problem - the Oil Spill is. All their efforts - business and communications - should be dedicated to solving that problem, not this minor one.
But then I got to thinking. What if I worked for Shell or Exxon or another large, competitor? What if a competitor created this account?
For starters, it would be extremely deceptive and dangerous for one to do so (could you imaging it being uncovered that this was the case?). But when you think about it, this sort of 'brand highjacking' by competitors becomes more possible in the world of social media. Unverified accounts, temporary email addresses and a bit of promotion and you've got an untraceable (relatively) account that can cause trouble if it gains steam.
It takes issues management to a whole new level. Is your competitor struggling? Is there a hot topic that is starting to gain traction among your target group? Why not start an account to help fuel the fire against a competitor? It would be like Advil creating a bunch of 'fake Mom' accounts during the Motrin disaster a few years ago.
I realize that it takes time for a fake account to create an impact. And BPGlobalPR has spawned a ton of spin off accounts that have little to no followers. But as a competitor of BP, aren't you quietly smiling at the PR coming off of this Twitter account? (not at the Oil-spill related as it's hard to smile about the worst environmental disaster in US History)
It's a strange thought but this type of brand-hijacking has been done before. If you visit artist forums or communities, you see it all the time. Don't believe me? It's the primary reason why Trend Reznor left social media after blazing the trail.
Fake accounts exist everywhere. Anyone can by a URL with your brand in it and it's hard to get it removed without adding fuel to the fire. Social brand hijacking is going to become more frequent. Do you have the team and policies in place to deal with it? Or are you one of the brands that is (secretly) a part of it?
IBM Seer Wimbledon App (Update)
It's nice to see IBM continuing to create relevant applications around their major events. Once the application is installed on a handset, they can follow up with the user as often as they like (even when the 2-week event is complete). Great stuff.
Wednesday
Timely, entertaining and product-centric. Nice one, Lego.
When brands think about how to be relevant for their consumers, they typically look inward and think about the core product benefit that would be most meaningful to their target.
Not Lego.
The formula? Product + Timely Event (World Cup) + Dramatic Event = Viral video rooted in your brand. Love this:
(Specifically relevant for the pain felt by every English Football fan right now...)
Not Lego.
The formula? Product + Timely Event (World Cup) + Dramatic Event = Viral video rooted in your brand. Love this:
(Specifically relevant for the pain felt by every English Football fan right now...)
Tuesday
An ad from Microsoft that isn't awful? Weird.
A tactical ad but so true. It's not often you see good advertising from Microsoft these days but the message here is a good one. The sheer amount of data that we share online is staggering. And it doesn't take $500 American to make us do so. Mostly we just want to creep on someones photo's so we create a Facebook profile.
Thursday
Hi Marketers it is the future calling
If you and your agencies are still relying on TV to get the message out you have in my best pulled out of my ass estimate 2 years to get your shit together. Why because changes in technology are going to make your campaign even less effective then it is today. If you rely on interrupting your consumers favourite shows to get your message across versus creating content that your consumer wants to watch, engage with or learn from you and your brand message will soon disappear.
For the sake of post-length I will skip over all of the talk about how in 10 years an entire generation going to be the 24-34 year olds that are used to turning to the web for entertainment first and TV second or lower. Add to this that TV itself is changing as the web has rocked the boat of content creation and put control, creation and choice in the hands of the consumer not the big networks.
Goodbye Cable box. Hello Google TV (as soon as I can get my hands on it).
For the sake of post-length I will skip over all of the talk about how in 10 years an entire generation going to be the 24-34 year olds that are used to turning to the web for entertainment first and TV second or lower. Add to this that TV itself is changing as the web has rocked the boat of content creation and put control, creation and choice in the hands of the consumer not the big networks.
Goodbye Cable box. Hello Google TV (as soon as I can get my hands on it).
Monday
Tuesday
Sunday
Being creative makes life more fun
Genius. Pure Genius captured with my iPhone in Downtown Toronto earlier this week.
Do you think about sound?
If you don't think about sound you should. It impacts productivity, sales, mood, your health and more.
It can also define a brand. What is the sound within your retail locations, your advertisements, your on-hold message and how does it all work together to create a positive and healthy world of sound.
It can also define a brand. What is the sound within your retail locations, your advertisements, your on-hold message and how does it all work together to create a positive and healthy world of sound.
Friday
Stanley Cup Finals
If you aren't Canadian you might not get goosebumps like I just did - but watch anyway.
Go Hawks.
Go Hawks.
Thursday
The Glee Effect
For all the talk about TV being dead, it still has a huge influence over our behavior. When we see something we like on TV, we surf for it, try to find more of it and broaden the experience we just had.
Here's a recent example of this effect:
Glee, a popular American TV series (one that I am forced to watch with my girlfriend...right), is a show based about an American Glee club that sings 4-5 popular songs each show. Essentially, it's a musical sitcom to songs that we all know by artists that people love - think Madonna, Aerosmith, etc.
So what happens when a new Glee episode airs in the US? The world searches for the songs on Google.
Take the May 18th episode 'Dream On' as an example. One of the major songs in the show? 'Dream on' by Aerosmith. Let's look at Google Trends for Search for 'Dream on aerosmith' and see what happened on May 18th:
Searches rose almost 300% on one day. And it wasn't just because that was the best song on the episode. Here's the results for 'I dreamed a dream' (from Les Miserables):
You might be thinking that this was just a popular episode (it was, Neil Patrick Harris was in it, how could it not have been sweet?), so let's look at one more example from an old episode that happened early in Season 1.The episode, called 'Mash-Up' aired on October 21, 2009 and featured the one-hit-wonder 'Thong Song' by Sisqo. Here is the result:
Again, a huge rise in searches the day the episode aired. (and I'm not sure what that second bump was but Vietnam was coming up so I'm assuming someone sang it on their version of X-Factor)Clearly the behavior exists among a large group of people. We see content that we like and we jump to our laptops to get more of it.
So here is my question. Is anyone searching for more after they see your TV campaign? If you can't notice a change in search trends, your campaign isn't working.
Skittles: Tube Sock
I love the risk taking that lies within the marketing department of skittles. I also love how they are able to capitalize on other trends or pop culture phenomenon in a way that doesn't come across as copying or contrived.
Betty White put old people back on the map as being funny and entertaining to youth like no one else had since Grandpa Simpson rose from a supporting cast member to front and centre in the early 2000's. While Betty White's putting old people back on the cool map handing out awards for MTV, starring on SNL and posing on magazine covers Skittles comes out with this.
Nice work.
Betty White put old people back on the map as being funny and entertaining to youth like no one else had since Grandpa Simpson rose from a supporting cast member to front and centre in the early 2000's. While Betty White's putting old people back on the cool map handing out awards for MTV, starring on SNL and posing on magazine covers Skittles comes out with this.
Nice work.
Saturday
Social media success starts with asking the right question
For the last five years, I've done a lot of work with brands and clients in social media. From podcasts to blogs, Facebook to Foursquare, social platforms have been - and continue to be - the hot topic for brands across the globe.
About two years ago, many brands entered what I would call the test period - they took a small percentage of a campaign budget - say 5-10% - and asked their agency, media company or PR group to brainstorm a few 'extension ideas' to 'bring the campaign to life' on a site like Facebook. The agency thought a bit about it, pitched some ideas (usually a FB page and a few ads, an application and definitely a promotion) and for a moment - a few months - progressive brands were heralded as the ones who tried something new. The ones who connected with their target via these 'new' mediums and - we were told by countless social experts at the 200 conferences they attend every year - the results were amazing, fantastic and mind blowing!!!
So more brands entered the space. More brand pages were launched. More promotions that involved voting for something, uploading a photo or sharing with your friends. And for awhile, everyone was pretty happy. (if I had to put a year on it, I'd say this was during the back-half of 2008 in North America).
But then the test period ended. The results came in and beyond the number of fans, amount of photo's uploaded, page views and general metrics, few people really knew how to make sense of social. Was it working? Did it actually help the brand attributes? Did it move sales? There are plenty examples of brands that do this and each platform highlights a ton of them in their sales presentations (which, for some reason, tend to highlight Hollywood movie releases in almost every one, Adidias, Nike, Starbucks or Apple). Yet most clients (and to be honest, agencies) still felt that the whole picture wasn't there.
And most of us still feel this way.
That's where the questions start. Unlike in 2008 when the question was, 'should we be using a bit of our budget to test social?' the question is now 'who should be managing social among our agency partners?'
This - inevitably - leads to a more fundamental question that some (but not all) brands are asking themselves: 'Who should be managing social within my company?'
For brands that have a couple hundred people, are concentrated within one country or region and sell a specific set of products, this answer can come a bit easier. But for the ones with a global presence, ones with thousands of brand managers across multiple regions, languages and locations, it's a lot harder. This effort is made tougher by the fact that some brand managers may have embraced social during the 'test phase' but others are just getting started. Some have already seen success and failure while others are still asking what a 'ReTweet' is.
To often, it seems that brands look outward for the solution. Give social to the PR group because they manage our brand reputation. Or give it to the digital agency because they do our sites. Or give it to the media group because they buy media and have a 'social expert' who seemed smart.
But the real question starts from inside. And, in some organisations, simply asking it can lead to trouble.
The product team, marketing group, customer services, tech and everyone else within the organisation wants (and needs) a say. But they are mostly isolated form one another except for the Christmas parties and all-staff meetings. They've got their own objectives, bonus schemes and priorities. Success for one group in social means nothing to another.
And that's the challenge. Unlike the early days of the web where organisations could slice up digital based on their pre-existing structure (marketing makes the banners and campaign sites, customer services has a 'live web chat' on our corporate site, PR sends the press releases out over the web, and we all keep doing what we're doing), social is more ubiquitous and forces these groups to come together - even if they don't want to.
The brands that have internally come together and had conversations about structuring, social metrics that they all align towards and have set the goals that they want to use the space for are the ones who are succeeding. They can then look at their agency roster and divvy up the priorities to their specialists and set sub-targets based on their individual objectives and priorities.
But the brands who haven't continue to be fragmented. They might have a social hit but they have many failures and their social strategy doesn't go much further than 'we should run an ad on Facebook for that'. The result is hundreds of tests but few long term platforms. Dozens of community pages but no engagement strategies.
Before you think about which agency should 'run' social and the millions of different social tools and campaigns that you want to launch, ask the question about how your organization is structured for social success. If it's not, get help. There are groups, brands and (of course) agencies who can help educate your organisation on what structures they have seen currently working vs. the ones that don't.
The help is there. But in order to get it, you've got to ask the right question.
About two years ago, many brands entered what I would call the test period - they took a small percentage of a campaign budget - say 5-10% - and asked their agency, media company or PR group to brainstorm a few 'extension ideas' to 'bring the campaign to life' on a site like Facebook. The agency thought a bit about it, pitched some ideas (usually a FB page and a few ads, an application and definitely a promotion) and for a moment - a few months - progressive brands were heralded as the ones who tried something new. The ones who connected with their target via these 'new' mediums and - we were told by countless social experts at the 200 conferences they attend every year - the results were amazing, fantastic and mind blowing!!!
So more brands entered the space. More brand pages were launched. More promotions that involved voting for something, uploading a photo or sharing with your friends. And for awhile, everyone was pretty happy. (if I had to put a year on it, I'd say this was during the back-half of 2008 in North America).
But then the test period ended. The results came in and beyond the number of fans, amount of photo's uploaded, page views and general metrics, few people really knew how to make sense of social. Was it working? Did it actually help the brand attributes? Did it move sales? There are plenty examples of brands that do this and each platform highlights a ton of them in their sales presentations (which, for some reason, tend to highlight Hollywood movie releases in almost every one, Adidias, Nike, Starbucks or Apple). Yet most clients (and to be honest, agencies) still felt that the whole picture wasn't there.
And most of us still feel this way.
That's where the questions start. Unlike in 2008 when the question was, 'should we be using a bit of our budget to test social?' the question is now 'who should be managing social among our agency partners?'
This - inevitably - leads to a more fundamental question that some (but not all) brands are asking themselves: 'Who should be managing social within my company?'
For brands that have a couple hundred people, are concentrated within one country or region and sell a specific set of products, this answer can come a bit easier. But for the ones with a global presence, ones with thousands of brand managers across multiple regions, languages and locations, it's a lot harder. This effort is made tougher by the fact that some brand managers may have embraced social during the 'test phase' but others are just getting started. Some have already seen success and failure while others are still asking what a 'ReTweet' is.
To often, it seems that brands look outward for the solution. Give social to the PR group because they manage our brand reputation. Or give it to the digital agency because they do our sites. Or give it to the media group because they buy media and have a 'social expert' who seemed smart.
But the real question starts from inside. And, in some organisations, simply asking it can lead to trouble.
The product team, marketing group, customer services, tech and everyone else within the organisation wants (and needs) a say. But they are mostly isolated form one another except for the Christmas parties and all-staff meetings. They've got their own objectives, bonus schemes and priorities. Success for one group in social means nothing to another.
And that's the challenge. Unlike the early days of the web where organisations could slice up digital based on their pre-existing structure (marketing makes the banners and campaign sites, customer services has a 'live web chat' on our corporate site, PR sends the press releases out over the web, and we all keep doing what we're doing), social is more ubiquitous and forces these groups to come together - even if they don't want to.
The brands that have internally come together and had conversations about structuring, social metrics that they all align towards and have set the goals that they want to use the space for are the ones who are succeeding. They can then look at their agency roster and divvy up the priorities to their specialists and set sub-targets based on their individual objectives and priorities.
But the brands who haven't continue to be fragmented. They might have a social hit but they have many failures and their social strategy doesn't go much further than 'we should run an ad on Facebook for that'. The result is hundreds of tests but few long term platforms. Dozens of community pages but no engagement strategies.
Before you think about which agency should 'run' social and the millions of different social tools and campaigns that you want to launch, ask the question about how your organization is structured for social success. If it's not, get help. There are groups, brands and (of course) agencies who can help educate your organisation on what structures they have seen currently working vs. the ones that don't.
The help is there. But in order to get it, you've got to ask the right question.
Thursday
I Have An Idea Portfolio Night 8: Advertising is Calling
I remember doing sponsorship sales for Portfolio Night in Canada 2 when it was only in Toronto & Vancouver - now look at it. Well done Ignacio and team.
Wednesday
Oh the humour: Darth Vader for TomTom
"You should have seen his face when I told him I was his father"....priceless.
Great stuff from TomTom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)