One of the things that happens naturally as you begin to work on a brand is that you begin to learn the in's and out's of it. What every product does, what every acronym stands for, how every product was manufactured.


Don't get me wrong, this is all great to know - the only downside is that you can often get too close to the brand and begin to assume that customers have the same level of respect and understanding about the brand as you do. When, in reality, the brand is likely to be a very small part of their life, only thinking about it when they are in the buying zone for that particular product.

Instead, don't learn everything about the brand you work on, be ignorant to the jargon as a customer would be, look at the market how the customer would and become closer to your customer's mindset not the mindset of the company's CEO.

|

|

Smiling is contagious.

Simple thought but it rings so true.


Brands spend so much time to understand social media and everything around it. Twitter, Facebook, blogging...you know the usual stuff.

All they really need to understand is that their current customers are the (new) media.

This by no means is a new theory; word of mouth has always been and always will be the most powerful vehicle for selling products. However, customers are now more powerful than ever. If they give your product or service a bad review that may put off potential customers.

Contrary to popular belief, brands CAN control this. How? By creating outstanding products and under promising and over delivering at every stage of the customer journey. Not simply making customers a sales statistic, creating and harnessing a relationship that these customers will want to talk positively about. Complacency can damage a relationship, just because they have bought your product doesn’t mean they will buy again. Just think about a personal relationship. Someone you know only becomes a good friend after you have worked to develop the relationship. It doesn’t simply happen after one encounter.

Brands need to stop concentrating on the media and concentrate on what has always mattered. The product and the customers. Creating great products and great relationships.

 

|

I'm sure by now most people have seen the IKEA Facebook idea. If you haven't it's below.

 

So, why is this idea so good and why are so many people trying to copy it? Well, because it's simple. 

It uses the functionality that already exists within Facebook, it isn't getting the audience to do anything complicated and it's not interrupting their usual activity.

As an industry everyone raves about "keeping it simple" yet we fail to do it on so many levels. This being a prime example. We need to realise that our ideas aren't going to change people's behaviours, our ideas need to be embedded into their existing behaviour. The IKEA idea takes something that people already do (tag photos) and uses this to their advantage. 

I think the one thing that surprised me with this was that it hadn't already been done. Well, it had been proposed, just not on a large scale! I along with Adam & Dan presented an almost identical idea a few months ago. The target audience was different, as was the product but the idea was essentially the same. Tag, spread and create a buzz. 

What we need to understand is that social networking sites are not different to real life. We speak to our friends; we share information with each other and we hang out. It's like chatting with your friends in the street.
.

Now, if I was having a conversation in the street with my friends, you wouldn’t walk up to me and interrupt our conversation or jump up and down in front of me trying to get me do something else. It would be plain rude and pretty annoying. This doesn't change online. I'm trying to socialise with my friends so stop interrupting me! Social networks are exactly what they say on the tin, a place to socialise. I don't want you trying to push your brands message in my face.

What would be the best way to get my attention? Simple. Give me something to talk about, give me a benefit, and give me something useful. Basically, what I wrote here.  I'm not interested in joining your group or confessing my bread sins. If I was, I would have already done it. The point I'm trying to make is that we can't control people's behaviours online. We can't do it offline so why is online any different?

I think the important thing to realise is that majority of people that are engaging with social media do so without any deep understanding of what they are doing in marketing contexts. Many people are producing their own content without a critical understanding of user-generated content. This can be anything from Facebook groups, twitter tags and YouTube videos. They're doing it for kicks, for laughs and to say to their friends "look at this!" Not to spread your brands message. If your message is good enough it will spread organically.

I'm sure two of my friends won't mind me sharing this:

Why did they make this video? 

For a laugh and to see how many people would watch it and find it funny.

Their aim wasn't to help Michael Buble sell more albums. However, this could be an after effect. If you watched the video and liked the song, you might end up purchasing it. Just because they understand how to use the technology doesn't mean that they understand the effects of what they are doing. Most social network users don't think about their information sharing practices or user content generation, they just do it. Brands need to create content that is worth sharing, talking about (or talking to) or re-creating. Simple.

This brings me back to my first point. We need to embed our ideas into existing behaviours. Create content that encourages engagement and interactivity without changing people’s behaviours. If it's a good enough idea it will spread itself, you can't control it. You can only plant it. Much like the IKEA idea. So let’s stop over complicating it, let’s keep it simple and let's stop interrupting people’s activities.

|

picture via

I had an interesting conversation with a friend today regarding the definition of success His definition of success is different to mine, mainly due to cultural differences.

Being a British Muslim, I have a somewhat of diverse upbringing. I have values that I have acquired from my traditional Muslim upbringing but then I have grown up in a Western society so that has had a big impact on my life and often the two have conflicted and contradicted each other. The main problem is that there is a mixture of expectations placed on you by family, friends and society as a whole. All these have different definitions of success. Essentially you are trying to tick a lot of different boxes.

Societies and cultures define the meaning of success in different ways. In modern capitalist societies, success is normally defined by the outward indicators of wealth. Essentially, being wealthy is seen to be successful. However in a different culture, having a family and respect in the community is deemed successful as opposed to materialistic wealth (see South Asian communities).

In this situation individuals may live their life trying to be accepted by different segments of society and ultimately not achieve their individual goals or satisfy their ambitions in fear of failing one or the other. The perceptions held by members of society concerning an individual's level of success clearly influence how successful individuals actually regard themselves to be. Individuals may take decisions that do not in please themselves but may deem them to be more successful in the eyes of others.

So how do you actually define success? It is pretty much a grey area. One way I guess you could define it is through happiness. You could be struggling to get by in life in a financial sense but still be content and happy with life or you could be a millionaire and a manic depressive. So, which one is the success here? Ultimately I think success depends on what angle you look at and from which person’s viewpoint.

For me success is extremely difficult to define mainly for some of the reasons mentioned above!

|

I recently saw this ad on the TV for Drench, the water brand. I thought it was fantastic!

A great example of a brand zagging, when I think of water ads I seem to recall mountains and people running. This completely takes a different approach, as viewers you stay locked in and want to see the whole thing. Brands need to do a lot at the current time to make them stand out, especially in a category such as water where there are so many competitors selling in essence, the same product. Brand personality is very important in this category. Hence the Evian baby ads.

What also occurred to me is that the ad still pushes the brands core goal, to keep people "drenched". You are reminded that staying drenched helps you perform better. Humour is all well and good but you it's all about the sales at the end of the day. In the worlds of David Ogilvy, "I do not regard advertising as entertainment or an art form, but as a medium of information." The Drench ad delivers the information and entertains at the same time.

On further investigation, they have seeded some rather humorous clips on YouTube. The clever hamster auditions. Although not as great as the mighty meerkat, they still go a long way in terms of engaging customers with the brand and adding the much needed fun element to staying hydrated. Something that can seem trivial for a lot of people, yours truly included.

A late addition to the post: just read they placed x-factor style ads in the Sun and the Metro for the clever hamster auditions. The tune from the ad will also be released in time for Christmas. Brilliant use of channels.

|

 

Finger crossed. Via. 

The lottery. Something that takes place on numerous occasions during the week and something that 1000's of people participate in. For what? Essentially a quick fix to their problems, you don't need worry about the bills or any of life’s other problems if you win it. You can make a lot of money quickly; after all, the draw takes seconds. The main problem however is that usually only one person wins, for the rest it's as the image indicates; it's about crossing their fingers for the following week. 

Now, not everyone plays the lottery. There are other ways to get a yacht, a villa in an exotic location and some really nice sports cars. However, this takes a lot longer, a lot more work and can be more of a risk then  £1. But who wants to do that?! Surely it is easier to put your money into a short term gain and hope for the best? You would think that wouldn’t you.

Being a advertising-y blog, I suppose I have to relate this to brands and show why it doesn't work. So here it is:

Often brands are in a position where not a lot is going right for them or they need a boost to their bottom line. So they take a gamble, obviously it costs a lot more than a £1 in this situation but essentially they are after the same result. Something that will elevate them from their current situation in a short period of time
.  

 
picture via  

A great example is Starbucks. A while back they bought out an instant coffee brand. This was done to grow Starbucks sales. Now, when you consider the whole point of going to Starbucks is to get a good coffee, surely instant coffee would damage the brand in the eyes of the consumer. 

Instead of looking for ways to solve their core problems they continue to damage the brand by looking for a short term fix. Starbucks sales aren't suffering because people are buying instant coffee - they are suffering because Starbucks is expensive! They need to address this issue instead of gambling and hoping it works out. This is a recent attempt by Starbuck's. Much the same as the instant coffee idea in my opinion....  

Brands need to realise that by l utilising these quick fix tactics for short term profit they are damaging their brand in the eyes of the consumer. If not in the present then definitely in the long run. Instead they need to focus on your core problems, improve their brands offering and understand the people who interact with their brand. 

I'm now off to buy my lottery ticket ;)  

|