The events that unfolded during the BP oil crisis of 2010 made us, at this fluid world, question what could have happened if an organisation such as BP had a different approach in terms of preparation, positioning and attitude.
Our belief is that a different outcome, in terms of communications and speed in finding a solution, could have been possible. Due to this we spent the summer of 2010 developing an alternative scenario based on a combination of the changing communications world we live in, the thinking, tools and methodologies of this fluid world, and learnings from the BP case.
The document comes in two parts:
Part one: a summary of the main events of the two first months of the BP crisis, with a focus on the communications side, to set the scene for our scenario.
Part two: a scenario presenting an alternative approach that is collaborative, transparent, responsible, open, honest and rapid.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of spending the day listening to different bands by the lake in Ouchy, Switzerland. One of the performers was a talented guitarist and singer from Ireland who put on a great show.
There was one problem though, the Irishman kept telling stories to his audience between the songs – some of them interesting, some of them funny, and some of them sad, but at no point did the audience react.
It reminded me of many brands in their attempt to communicate with their audience. It’s easy to draw a parallel between a brand’s mistakes in communicating, and our artists attempt to entertain his audience
So what can brands learn from a talking Irishman?
The audience is not yours. Assuming your audience is, well yours and that they are dying to hear what you have to say is a common mistake. Like the customers of most brands, people attending the concert were not there specifically to see the Irishman. They were there to have a nice time and enjoy a day of music. What does that mean? It means that the stories he was telling were of no relevance to the audience, they had never heard of the people he were referring to, or the musicians he was honouring. As a brand, it is rare people turn up for you, recognising that should fundamentally change how, and what you choose to communicate, or do for that matter.
Different context requires different communication. The Irishman probably has a very strong following in some parts of the world, like many brands do, people that come to a concert to see him specifically. Among your fans (loyal customers) you can tell your tails all day long – to them it’s music to their ears (no pun intended). But outside of that environment you have to adapt, read the situation correctly. A discussion forum, for example, is not your environment, and can’t be treated in the same way as your website or your packaging (although I would argue the latter aren’t your environments either).
Your language is not their language. The Irishman failed to notice that hardly anyone in the audience spoke English. I don’t know about you but I don’t speak ‘brand’, yet brands keep speaking their language to me, which I cover in some detail this post about the language used by brands in advertising. Here is an example I site in the blog from a PC World ad voice over, ‘Plus they had 200 pounds of this 47 inch LG 200 hertz 10 ETP TV and it was only 699 pounds’. What? I’m sure that no one but product managers speaks that language!
Listen to feedback. One would think that after a few stories, and a silent audience, our Irishman would understand the potential language barrier and change tactics, but no. The penny didn’t even drop when he kept asking people in the audience questions, and no one answered. How many times have you seen brands keep talking to an audience even when you don’t react, or even listen…how many times have you seen brands asking audiences to do something, and nothing happens, how many times have you seen brands commission consumer research to subsequently do absolutely nothing with the consumer feedback?!
Leave the ego at home. I suspect the Irishman not changing his behaviour had a lot to do with the fact that he was talking mostly to please himself – or his ego. And I’m sure all of us have met one…or two… or… Marketing Directors producing communications (especially those in the shape of 30 seconds) that have one main purpose, make the Marketing Director feel good about himself.
I could go on but I think you get the point!
But on a positive note, at least the Irishman had one thing going for him that many brands don’t – a hell of a product (voice) and a hell of a setting to sell it in (below view). Beats Tesco, no?
This week was admin week. Nothing good can come out of admin week. Not only is it not enjoyable, but it usually involves dealing with loads of files, paper and unfortunately….organisations.
The life of a customer is an endless source of frustration, disbelief and rare moments of feeling ecstatic – or seen from another perspective, an endless source of inspiration for someone who likes to observe, and write about business and marketing in action (or should I say inaction!).
I have therefore decided that, as I continue to be a customer, observe customers, speak to customers or read about customers, I will report on my observations via ‘The chronicles of a customer’ (hence why I re-named the original blog ‘The chronicles of a customer: Volume 1’).
So back to my admin week….
I need a new bank. Why? Because in addition to a personal account I also need a business account, both with its own credit card (or at least a debit card). But Citibank refuses to accept that one can be a private banker and the owner of a business, all at the same time. Hence their business processes are structured as if those two worlds were mutually exclusive. I will spare you the statistics of how much small and medium size business’ contribute to a country’s GDP, suffice to say it’s a massive chunk – hence one would think a bank would like to cater for their needs, but when it comes to Citibank apparently not so much.
(Me trying to get information on Citibank Business banking prior to calling them and getting the bad news…)
So I call Lloyds. Not because of their site, or anything in their documentation – as you know these things are never written for a customer and are therefore totally impossible to understand. I chose Lloyds because someone I trust recommended the bank to me (this by the way would make me seriously reconsider how I allocate my marketing spend if I was the Marketing Director of a major bank).
Five phone calls later, with five different departments in numerous cities, I realise this is a pandemic. Banks insist on separating the organisation that takes care of personal banking from the one dealing with business banking, and not only that, no one in personal banking has a clue about who one should call to get a business account set up.
The only solution for me, the customer, is to compromise. I have to stay with both banks, making one my personal and the second my business bank. Not ideal, but then I’m just a customer.
Next. Time to insure the Vespa. I call my insurer Aviva as I want to know what difference it will make to my present insurance if I exclude one of the extra drivers. A few hundred commands, and a significant wait later I’m told that ‘Unfortunately we can’t tell you this without actually taking out the extra driver from the policy’. I’m also informed that if I, at that stage, decide to keep the driver on the insurance I will have to go through the whole registration procedure again. Why? Because that is how the system is designed.
The only solution for me, the customer, is to compromise. And in my case it meant keeping the extra driver on, I just don’t have 20 minutes to spend on the phone with some random insurance company working around ‘their system’. Not ideal, but then I’m just a customer.
I also needed to re-new my travel insurance with Insure and Go. After having answered the security question of when I was born with ‘in 1969’, I was asked during the health questions ‘Are you older than 75?’. Am I older than 75? I don’t know, bearing in mind I just told them I was born in 1969 what do they think? Ah but then the person writing the security check questions is not the same person writing the insurance application questions – who cares if it makes an organisation look a little silly – or forces a customer to answer unnecessary questions!
And finally I spent a ‘glorious’ time at the post office until they finally accepted my Belgian Driving license when I tried to change money. Apparently the UK Post Office is not aware the the UK is in the EU, and therefore by EU law; if they accept a British driving license, they also have to accept all EU licenses (yes even a Belgian one ).
The only solution for me, patiently waiting for the manager followed by some lengthy negotiation. Not ideal, but then I’m just a customer.
It’s Sunday and admin week is over! I say thank God for the Screen on Baker Street. A lovely little cinema, recently re-designed, and yes with the customer in mind!!!! This my friends is how I celebrated the end of the week in the life of a customer (courtesy The Screen on Baker Street’s alcohol license) – cheers to admin!
I’ve just spent four days without Internet, and with hardly any mobile connection. Yes you read right, four days. And no, it was not due to a BT strike, and no I’m not describing a scene from a horror movie, nor is it a joke.
It’s simply life in a village in Tuscany.
People working in marketing and communications know that they’re not a representation of the majority of people they look to sell products to. Most of us are very well aware of the fact that we live in a tiny bubble called ‘media and advertising…in London’. Yet I wonder sometimes if we really do know, really do understand, as on a deep level, how a big chunk of the world lives?
I have the pleasure of working with Steve Gladdis at MediaCom (a fabulous person and also happens to be the best dressed man at the agency). A few years ago Steve came up with the idea of method planning. The concept is simple, if method acting refers to a series of techniques by which actors try to create in themselves the thoughts and emotions of their characters in an effort to develop lifelike performance. Method planning does the same thing, but with the output being a great media plan (of which Steve, may I add, is responsible for many).
(The lovely Steve Gladdis)
Well, I have just had a dose of ‘method living’!
Last week I arrived in Italy for the wedding of one of my oldest friends. It was in an amazing village situated in the rolling hills of Tuscany (3 hours drive from Pisa) surrounded by vineyards.
I had been in the hotel 2 minutes when I asked about wifi (of which there was none) and 5 minutes when I realised that not only did they not have international TV channels, but the ones they had were rendered useless by static. Thank God for my iPhone…but nope…no connection!
The next day my friend and I were sent on a mission to find candles. As we walked around in search of candles I realised that a hardware store and a fruit shop was the only retail experience the village had to offer. We proceeded to ask the locals, only to be greeted with the same apologetic phrase from everyone we asked, “Ahhh no we don’t have things like large candles here” (only in Italian of course – not an English word between the inhabitants of the stone village).
Have I just arrived in marketer’s hell I asked myself? No channels to advertise on (digital does not exist, and TV is impossible to see), and no shops to sell anything to anyone in? But more importantly no people who seem to care about the fact that they are living in a marcomms free zone!
I have to be honest, I spent the first 24 hours confused wondering what do people in a place like this do? How do they manage without the bare necessities?
And then I decided to get over myself and do a bit of method living. And I can tell you ‘they manage’ very well.
I joined them in cafes and I talked, I watched them make amazing wine, I looked at some of the most stunning views, I tasted the previously mentioned wine, I watched them hang and laugh, I basically saw them living life. I also saw their Yves Saint Laurent bags, and their designer glasses so they are also clearly able to shop. They are just not connected 24/7!
As I traveled home I started thinking… How to be relevant to these people? How to engage with them? And more importantly how to connect with them? And when I say them, I don’t mean just my new Italian friends, but anyone, anywhere with other things to do (I stopped myself from saying better things to do ) than staring at screens of different sizes.
Just to follow on the theme of method living…I think the best thing for me is to pour myself a glass of wine from the lovely bottle I brought back, in the hope that living it some more will give me an answer to my questions!!!
I’ve been asked to speak at a panel at EGR Live (eGaming Review brand) covering the topic ‘Marketing on a shoestring budget’. My role on this panel is as ‘someone who knows about social media’… and it got me thinking.
Everyone loves seeing an underdog make it. And in marketing land an underdog is someone with little or no budget. So when Paranormal Activity, a movie with a production budget of $10,000 and no marketing budget, makes it into American theatres through an active approach to social media, we pay attention, we pay attention and we want some of that magic too!!!
I love stories like this, but I fear that it gives people the wrong impression of the role that digital and social media should play in marketing.
Marketing does not = advertising, we must therefore look at marketing from a broader perspective
The main reaction marketers have when they think of marketing on a shoestring budget is free advertising, and the solution to this is social media and SEO.
This is a limited view of marketing. If, as a marketer, you truly want to decrease marketing cost you MUST look at marketing from a broader perspective. If, as a marketer, you truly want to be part of the social media tidal wave you MUST look at the role digital and social media can, and should play, in the entire marketing mix.
Some companies are getting this right, and ‘qu’elle surprise’, they are also the same companies we keep reading about in the trade press and hearing about at conferences. The reason they’re such success stories is because they do NOT look at social media as a way of decreasing advertising budget, they look at social media (and with this I mean the power of people) as something that can affect their entire marketing mix. Let me give you some examples, and I know you will be familiar with these.
Product development: LEGO with its software ‘Design By Me’ allowing people to design their very own custom made LEGO sets
Price: Open Source Foundation with its promise of being better quality, higher reliability, more flexible at a lower cost
Distribution: Kogi BBQ has several trucks serving Korean food in LA and uses twitter to tell its customers where they can find their van’s each day
Promotion: (the aforementioned) Paranormal Activity
And finally Zappos, a company who gets it right throughout the value chain, has during the past 10 years grown from almost no sales to more than $1 billion in annual gross merchandise sales. This has been achieved primarily by repeat customers and word of mouth.
These are all examples of excellent marketing, and in some cases of advertising on a shoestring budget!
Create an army of fanatics
There is another thing these companies have in common; they have what Jonathan MacDonald, my business partner at this fluid world, refers to as an army of fanatics supporting them. An army of fanatics are people that produce and create for you, talk about you, promote you, sell your products, and in tough times defend you!
Shift marketing investment to earlier stages of the value chain
When we at this fluid world work with organisations that are looking at decreasing their marketing budget (often through social media), we recommend that they shift their investment to an earlier stage of the value chain, in addition to focusing their attention on creating an army of fanatics, rather than on how to advertise as cheaply as possible. Why? Because we know that this will save organisations money across the board.
We recommend:
They tap into the zeitgeist “the spirit of the times”, soak themselves in the cultural and spiritual climate, live breathe and eat what people do, think and talk about
That they create extreme value, be it in utility, convenience, enablement, connectivity, coolness or reward; within and around everything they do. This can only be achieved if stage one is taken seriously, and done well
After having created something extremely valuable make sure it’s ultra findable. The distance between inspiration and satisfaction must be reduced toward instantaneous. Be everywhere! Yes this is where search comes in – but only as a part of it
And finally make sure it’s super shareable. It seems such an easy concept but the efficiencies of distribution become significant when people who like something can share it with others. The ‘viral’ campaigns we see working best are those that have an instant way of sharing between people. This accelerates the advocacy effect of armies of fanatics
Gaming is all about armies of fanatics
As you can imagine, creating an army of fanatics is easier said than done, especially if you’re in the business of selling sugar water or you are, for example, an energy company…
But if you’re reading this and you’re in gaming, than you’re incredibly lucky because you’re in an industry that by nature is made up of fanatics! People who game love gaming, people who game breathe gaming! You already have the army of fanatics to tap into by default. They are there, waiting to connect waiting to play (literally!).
So what does that mean to you? It means that your job is to make them YOUR army of fanatics!
Look at Zynga, the makers of FarmVille, and FishVille, with 230 million users each month (using a limited advertising budget) and Mafia Wars with its 12,104,521 facebook fans (as of 2nd of June 2010). These are games that have created and tapped into fanatical armies at great success!
This, by the way, requires following the same recommendations outlined above. Gaming is the perfect environment for a brand to create THEIR army of fanatics, and for social media marketing to prove itself in every part of the marketing mix.
If the gaming industry gets it right, I believe it could do to social media marketing what porn did to the Internet – accelerate its success!
And for whoever does this well, it will be game, set and match!
My last blog ‘Do we need strategists? Hell yeah!’ mentions hiring ‘heads of what’s in vogue’, and I would like to discuss this topic a bit further.
When I say ‘head of what’s in vogue’, yes I do mean Head of Digital, Mobile and now Social Media (in addition to the next thing that will come along).
Do not get me wrong, every new channel, discipline and/or opportunity should be acknowledged and recognised for their potential importance, and the possibilities they may bring.
I’m also all for recruiting necessary skills, and for assigning roles and responsibilities (the buck has to stop somewhere), and finally I have no problem with those roles and responsibilities coming with a title.
What I do have an issue with is agencies and organisations reasons for assigning a head of Digital/Mobile/Social Media. From my experience when such an appointment is made it’s for one of the following reasons:
Everyone else is, so it must be important, hence we should hire someone too
We’re not sure we buy into it, but we do need to be seen as doing so (by the trade press and our clients)
We don’t really have time to think about it so we’ll hire someone to delegate the responsibility to
Hey, maybe it will lead to a new revenue stream
Hiring someone is as good as a change, no? (and yes a lot easier!)
What seems to only rarely be on the agenda is hiring someone to do what is desperately needed, manage the necessary mind-shift to affect real change, rather than just contribute to a campaign, or meet with senior clients (pixie dust).
For that to happen the new Head should spend his time:
Figuring out the role of, for example digital, mobile and social media, in the communications and marketing mix
Identifying its best use in achieving business objectives and marketing goals, this per category, stage in product life cycle and per campaign
Ensuring awareness and REAL understanding of the topic within the agency/company
Making sure everyone in the agency/company understand its role, value, and knows how to use it and what to expect from it
What is needed is to ensure that the right measures are taken to make what is new part of business as usual, so that it becomes EVERYONE’s responsibility.
Because without this happening we will never have what is truly needed and that is great marketing and communications practitioners that can adapt to any change and capitalise on any opportunity (be it a channel, platform or disciple) that comes their way!
So if you hire anyone hire a ‘Head of figuring things out’, a ‘Head of understanding people’, a ‘Head of getting stuff done’ – or alternatively hire smart generalists with deep knowledge and experience for a day, a week a month (we love those in this fluid world so if you’re one, or looking for one, get in touch)
Hire them and let them loose in your organisation with a simple brief, ‘to find answers, to find solutions, to achieve great marketing and communications that is channel, platform or disciple agnostic’ – hire them to achieve companie’s business and marketing objectives (this would be a strategy rather than sprinkling pixie dust).
I’m afraid this will not happen if we keep hiring Head… after Head… after Head of ‘whatever is in vogue’!
This piece deals with when all else fail, control communications.
I’m prepared to accept that there are times when you are forced to cooperate with organisations whose actions are not under your control. If you happen to find yourself in such a situation, then you must be responsible for, and take control of the one thing you do have power over – your communications.
Let me give you an example.
A few years ago I bought a TV from John Lewis.
Anyone who has had the pleasure of buying anything in John Lewis’ electronics department will know that it’s a pure pleasure. The waiting time to be served is short, the staff helpful and polite, the advice based on customer need and not on the desire to up-sell, and the choice available more than acceptable. So far all good (and yes under the control of John Lewis).
However it all goes horribly wrong just a few days later (while I’m still in the post purchase anxiety of ‘do I really need a new TV?’ period – and also within the time frame when I can bring the TV back).
A letter arrives in the post, it’s not a ‘we hope you enjoy your TV’ message from John Lewis, but a threatening letter from the TV license people.
A letter treating me like a criminal because I have just bought a TV and, according to them, don’t have a license for it. No consideration that I may have bought it as a present for someone, or that I may actually have a license (which I did!) – just a threatening letter full of assumptions.
In one second my warm and fuzzy feelings for John Lewis disappears! Warm and fuzzy feelings I had because of an excellent service that I’m sure cost John Lewis a lot of money to deliver on! “But this has nothing to do with John Lewis” I hear you say!
But it does!
I understand John Lewis legally have to inform the license people when someone buys a TV from them. I also understand that they have no control of the letter that is ultimately sent to their customers (although if I were them I would fight this one all the way to court!).
What I DON’T understand is why they did not have the courtesy to inform me about this legal obligation, and about the letter that would arrive at my doorstep a few days later. What I don’t understand is that they don’t try to separate my experience with them, with my experience with the TV license people. What I don’t understand is that in a situation where they can’t control the actions of an organisation they are forced to cooperate with, over whom they have no power, they don’t control and manage what they do have power of, the communications.
All it would have taken is a “We would like to inform you that we legally have to inform the organisation responsible for TV licenses about your purchase, and that you will be receiving a letter from them within a week”.
Just one simple phrase, yet a phrase that would mean a 100% disassociation from an unpleasant experience that is about to happen, one that could damage their brand, one phrase that would leave the customer with the feeling that John Lewis is on ‘their’ side!
As an organisation you must have a clear understanding of what you can and can’t control. As an organisation you must have a clear understanding as to the possible damaging scenarios around what you can’t control. As an organisation you must make sure that you use communications in your favour to avoid any negative associations from the behaviour of any of those suppliers/collaborators.
But use communications as a last option, control and prevention will always be more powerful! And after all, if Apple can force Vodafone to make each customers open the iPhone package themselves when they buy a new iPhone because ‘it’s part of the customer experience’ (bearing in mind that I as a customer can’t get Vodafone to do anything) – then everything is possible!
If you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and developing TV advertising, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champaign).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…desperate to take yet another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The conditions we live in today are completely different from what they were a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet, few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to outer disposal and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is to build fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing.
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary flexibility to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which the survival of their organisation depends on.
djojsIf you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and developing TV advertising, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champaign).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…desperate to take yet another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The conditions we live in today are completely different from what they were a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet, few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to outer disposal and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is to build fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing.
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary flexibility to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which the survival of their organisation depends on.
If you work in an agency, or for a brand, chances are that you are trying to get your head around digital. Be it how to use it, integrate it, build brands with it, avoid the threats caused by it… or how to make money from it.
To many digital is the hope of a threatened industry.
To us in this fluid world there’s something wrong with this. To us in this fluid world it seems like the industry is missing a vital point.
Let me explain.
The reason we have major media and creative agencies like Ogilvy, Saatchi, MindShare and OMD is because when commercial TV launched, these agencies figured out how to make money from TV advertising.
The key word is FIGURED OUT not TV advertising. Trust me when I say monetizing TV through advertising was far from an easy task.
These agencies realised that they lived in a time where building name recognition and capturing audience attention was essential to the bottom line. To do this well they invented the focus group, the consumer survey, the direct-mail campaign, I could go on. Why? Because they understood that marketing decisions should be based on research and a solid understanding of the target audience.
Their focus was not on TV as a channel…but on the type of people in front of the TV, the context in which they sat there, the kind of lives they lived, and what made them tick.
By understanding people in this environment, and designing TV advertising around it, these agencies took one giant step into the future, a step that ensured their economic survival for decades (and a lot of Champagne).
So here we are today with a new challenge, and a new opportunity, in different economic times…and desperate to, via digital, take another giant step into the future, a step that we hope will ensure our economic survival for decades to come.
There are a few problems with this.
Digital is broader and more complex than TV, it’s not a channel it’s a lifestyle.
The speed of change and technology guarantees only one thing, and that is that change is continuous.
The world we live in today is completely different from what it was a few decades ago when TV advertising was born.
Yet few seem to be taking the time to FIGURE it out – many however are talking the Mad Men learnings and principles and repurposing them. By doing this they are making the mistake of simply replacing one channel with another… expecting the same result.
What this industry needs is a new breed of mad men (and I mean mad in its true sense because it wont be easy). It needs people mad enough to take the time to figure this out, in the context of today, the tools which we have to our disposal, and the reality in which we, and the people we want to get the attention from, live in.
And unlike the original Mad Men we will not be benefiting from one giant step into the future. The competitive advantage will not come from ‘figuring out how to monetize digital’. The competitive advantage will come from understanding that there will probably never be a giant step into the future…but rather a series of small continuous steps…forever and ever and ever.
By that rational, our job as marketers is not to ‘figure out digital’, but to figure things out, continuously…How? By building fluidity into the way we think, do research, produce products and services, communicate, interact and manage our organisation. Our job is to learn, to prepare for change and to be ready for the next big thing (or to create it).
This is why Jonathan MacDonald and I set up this fluid world. Our goal and mission is to help organisations achieve the necessary fluidity to get their head around, not just digital, but anything else on which their survival depends on.
Actually nothing mad about that…if I can say so myself.
I love high streets. I chose to live in Marylebone because of its particularly lovely high street. I go out of my way to purchase as much as I can from the independent stores there (well from the ones that are left) rather than from chains or on-line, this to show my support, and to ensure their survival.
But lately I’m finding it increasingly hard to buy things from the high street. Which makes me seriously question its future…
Why?
Well; let’s look at it from a basic marketing perspective. Forgive me for using such a simple, and to many outdated model, as the 4 P’s, but hey I’m a 60’s child so for the sake of simplicity I will stick to the 4 P’s rather than debating what should replace them. (The 4 P’s by the way was invented in 1960 by Jerome McCarthy– so I don’t dispute they need a revamp ).
Anyway, back to the high street.
It’s clear that it can’t compete on price. A while ago I went to Selfridges to buy a memory card, and ended up buying one on-line for £50 less. I wanted to buy ink for my printer at Ryman’s, and bought the same ink on-line at a 50% discount.
How about product? I doubt anyone would dispute that when it comes to product range and type, no-one can beat the Internet (especially with the effect of the long-tail and therefore the ability of offering a product even if there are only a few hundred buyers in one place).
Distribution (place) maybe? There is no way a retailer can have a presence everywhere (although some try at a massive cost). So nope the high street does not seem to be able to compete on place either.
As for promotion, I wont even go there as the Internet has most available communication and targeting tools at its disposal, at a relatively small cost.
So what if we extend the 4 P’s and add a service element to it – process (which refers to the systems used to assist the organisation in delivering the service)? A few weeks ago I went to Divertimenti to buy a new filter for my Bialetti espresso maker. They had none in stock and I was told they could order one for me, and call when it arrived. In the spirit of support I chose to accept to wait and said yes. I went back today thinking they must have forgotten to call me. But oh no, the delivery would take 6 weeks. 6 weeks! So I guess it’s a no no to being competitive on process!
So what is the high street retailer doing about this rather serious problem? Well, some offer their own on-line e-commerce facility, or they allow Amazon to power their sales (to overcome the distribution challenge ), they try to put more products in store (range challenge), they slash their prices (price challenge), they pack their windows with sales messages (promotion and advertising challenge)…I could go on… but basically all efforts are ‘me-too’ strategies, and I don’t know about you, but to me trying to compete with the Internet head on seems rather stupid!
One would think that the only way forward is to differentiate. Basically to try to offer something which is not possible to offer on-line. Which brings me to the two remaining P’s of the service marketing mix, (in addition to process) people and physical evidence. These are the two things retailers have today that the Internet does not have. You would think they would use it! And yet finding an original retails space, offering a great experience, populated by people that add value (rather than affect it negatively) is extremely rare now a days.
So who get’s it right outside of the constantly mentioned Apple and Nike stores (with their endless marketing budgets)?!
I suggest a visit to Daunt’s bookstore where the books are categorised by country and not author, and where people serving you actually read books! Make sure you pop by La Fromagerie, a cheese shop that would hold its own next to any French cheese shop, and where the staff can tell you the origin of any cheese. Still hungry? I recommend Mr Biggley’s sausages, made from scratch in his basement – he will tell you all about the art that is sausage making. And just in case you need a button – pop by the Button Queen, there are more buttons there then you know what to do with – and believe it or not, staff that are enthused about – yes buttons!
Or maybe the future will look differently. My business partner in this fluid world Jonathan MacDonald has a very interesting view on where we may be heading!
“In the future, people will pay for human interaction – perhaps we will have toll roads that harbour these interactions – due to the nature of saying ‘hello’, we can call these ‘hi streets’ and we will congregate in Public Urban Boundary Systems (which will be shortened to the word ‘pubs’)”.
I shall now say good bye to you all, and who knows maybe we will meet, sometime in the future… on the ‘hi-street’ or in the ‘pub’!
The Observer published an excellent article today called ‘Democratic, but dangerous too: how the web changed our world’.
It crystalised something that has been bothering me about the Internet, or to be more precise about the way it’s often used in marketing, and therefore the effect it’s having on how we are seen as people.
The article says it so much better than I would, so here it is.
‘The surveillance implications for this [the internet] are clear, but there are wider cultural implications when the money people behind the scenes get their rewards for feeding us exactly what we want. Amazon’s recommendation engine, Last.fm’s social music service, even news sites such as the Huffington Post, reduce the possibility for serendipity by serving up what they think we want, channelling us into a loop of confirmation.’
It seems that in the early years of the Internet it gave people the chance to break away from being able to be put in predefined boxes… and then through our own behaviour, some tracking, some ad and information serving… there we are again, back to being categorized and put into bland boxes.
The author Douglas Rushkoff put this brilliantly when he said: “The more like one of my kind of person I become, the less me I am, and the more I am a demographic type.”
I guess this sounds like a marketer’s dream, a world where we break people down into categories so we can do our job. To me it sounds like we are missing something important.
It feels like marketers are missing the opportunity to really understand me. This has the unfortunate outcome of me having to live in a world where people continuously make assumptions about me. I bought a book about birds, I must be a bird watcher (not so much!). Ignoring the individual means that marketers live in a world where they continuously miss the point of, and the opportunity brought by the Internet.
It also feels like marketers are missing out on the opportunity that comes with randomness….the more people cross fertilise between topics, the more they have their views and opinions challenged, the more they stumble upon different things, the better the quality of their ideas. And in a world of co-creation this is not just relevant to employees, but also to customers. Ignoring this means that marketers live in a world where there is a risk of marketing myopia, not just on a corporate level, but on a social and cultural level, a myopia that could lead to a decrease in the quality of ideas, and therefore also of the products, services and solutions organisations offer.
It also seems that by fixating on what people are doing (and on putting them in boxes), marketers are not paying attention to what they’re NOT doing. In a world that only pays attention to the do’s, all we will achieve as marketers is incremental innovation; rather than radical innovation. Nothing wrong with incremental innovation, but not exactly the key competitive advantage companies should strive for!
I’m not saying the Internet is not a wealth of information and inspiration. It most definitely is! I’m simply stating that the social and cultural risk that come with reinforcing similar behaviour (mainly driven by a wish to control), could mean that rather than capitalising on the paradigm shift caused by the Interenet and going forward, we will start going backward.
A good marketer allows his curiosity to go everywhere (and therefore also the people he interacts with), a good marketer does not just follow people’s behaviour (or competition’s) and act accordingly, they lead the way, often without information or data, a good marketer gives people not only what they want, but also what we need, and what they never knew they wanted…
…but most importantly, a good marketer celebrates individuals and individualism (not boxes)!
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.liriandersson.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
).
