Weblog Consulting Register Login Subscribe to Free Influx Emails Join our Facebook Group Follow us on Twitter Branding Street Cred Technology Lifestyle Style Entertainment Interviews Art InfluxTV Map Widgets RSS — All Subjects RSS — More Feeds

Search

Advanced Search

Contact Privacy Policy

According to Campaign, VW is looking for a social media agency in the UK.

This will add another partner to the company's already expansive communications roster, add incremental fees and mean there's more to manage and co-ordinate. In a an environment where budgets and resources are being challenged, it seems counter-intuitive.

However, the media has done a good job, Influx Insights included, in hyping the social media space to such a point that client's probably believe the need a specialist to help them in this complex and challenging environment.

On the surface, at a moment in time when the CMO and his or her bosses seem fixated on the thrills of Facebook and Twitter, holding a review and hiring a specialist seems like a problem solved.

In reality, it might be more trouble that it's worth. If you take a step back and look at how social media breaks down and what's needed, it's pretty basic.

1. Someone has to listen and respond- probably best for the in-house customer service team to work on this.

2. Posting relevant content to get conversation-likely to be split between PR and advertising who both play a role in getting content out to the crowd. Good companies in these fields are already up-to-speed and know the world of social media.

Social media is another channel that must be a part of the communication mix, but fragmenting responsibility, while it seems like a sound plan, might make a marketers life a lot more complicated.

It would be great to get people's thoughts on this topic.


Posted by Ed Cotton Facebook is clearly in some kind of internal crisis with the recent departure of the CFO, it appears the company is engaged in some kind of soul searching around the need to demonstrate serious revenue growth.

Time Magazine seems to believe that Facebook can never make money.

"The reason that social networks will never do well financially is that they break from the successful model that has brought so many marketers to the internet. Display advertising can be targeted by subject. Financial advertisers run messages on AOL Finance (TWX) and TheStreet.com (TSCM). They avoid sites for children's video games. Search sites like Google refined the model by allowing advertisers to buy search engine results pages. The Google results' pages for the search "heart doctors in New York City" is probably the best place in the world for heart doctors in New York City to market themselves."

Sadly, Time is missing the point. Facebook has a giant opportunity to leverage the relationships inside social networks for the benefit of brands.

The multi-billion dollar question is how?

Facebook could do worse than ask the best minds in the agency and media worlds for some creative consultancy help in coming up with ideas to make this work. Ideas that go beyond the banner and weak branded applications. Charging brands for "fan pages" is one way to go, but there are lots of others.

Many pundits suggest that social networks will revolt when ads appear, this hasn't happened to date, and according to research from Razorfish, seems unlikely to.

Facebook is a media monster that will find a way to crack the code as recent events have shown, it just needs some patience to get there.





Posted by Ed Cotton There's a recent article in Ad Age that talks about the ANA meeting where CMOs vented their frustration with ad agencies over their responsiveness and the increasing opportunity they believe exists with media companies.

"Agencies and ad networks came in for some rough treatment at a CMO roundtable during the Association of National Advertisers' annual conference on Saturday as executives vented their dissatisfaction with agency models and ad-network performance. The chief marketing officers of Hewlett-Packard and Charles Schwab openly mulled the attractiveness of bypassing agencies to work directly with media companies and other experiments as they look to fix an agency model they see as broken."

In my view there's some truth to the argument that agencies are somewhat tied to a time intensive process that has to change, but in terms of thinking and ideas, I don't believe media companies can replace agencies.

The reality today is that great ideas matter way more than fast ideas.

Creativity is needed more than ever.

The reason for this is the massive increase in the volume of micro-interactions (emails, Tweets, Facebook updates, viral videos, channel surfing, radio surfing,etc...). I am not going to suggest we are reaching "Information Overload", or that we are suffering from "Future Shock", because I believe in our ability to adapt and manage. However, it's a simple fact that the more stuff you have the harder it's going to be to remember it and just "being there" in a media sense, I believe is no longer sufficient to generate interest, recall and to persuade.

This isn't about just showing up in a media, it's about placing a brilliant idea in media that is contextually right and relevant.

Brilliance has become a mandatory, because without it, there's no way your brand is going to be recalled or make an impact, it will simply be just another message that's ignored and goes in the trash, most of our email.

It's likely the CMOs in the article are merely reflecting back the pressure they are under and things taking time to get to market can add to that. However, the ad industry employs some of the smartest, brightest idea creators around and if clients aren't demanding and using that brilliance, they are missing something that's essential in today's tough times.




Posted by Ed Cotton It's very easy for creative briefs to become shopping lists of client requests for "must haves" to include in the advertising. These living proof points are supposed validation of a brand's existence, but is this the right approach and does it leading to better ads?

Paul Feldwick, the master planner (ex-BMP), argues that great ads aren't about messaging at all, but instead focus on subtle nuances and feelings that they create for the viewer. It's all these intangibles that add up to something way bigger than any specific message.

He uses the example of Budweiser's Wassup.



Here's how he explains it, or tries.

"I think it's actually impossible to analyse exactly how and why they make their effect. That doesn't stop us trying and people often come out with their own answers but I think really it it's what defies analysis.

But the visceral power of analogue communication sits uncomfortably with the fact that most organisations strongly privilege digital communications. In a business meeting we are usually expected to offer facts and figures, logic and analysis; often for very good reasons. But when discussing advertising this tendency strongly biases people to ignore or undervalue the importance of the analogue mode of communication."

Isn't it time to re-think the creative brief?


Posted by Ed Cotton A few weeks back Esther Dyson wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ about the future of  advertising. She uses the example of Dopplr (the travel based social network) as a way of imagining a new brand relationship.

"Each user determines who will get into his own garden, whether friends or vendors. Look at Dopplr (where I plan to become an investor), a site for travelers. I list my trips, and see how they intersect with my friends' itineraries. "Oh, we'll both be in London April 4? Let's get together!" Or, "Juan and Alice will be in town next Tuesday. Let's hold a dinner!" You can imagine or visit equivalent approaches for books (a hypothetical Amazon 2.0, new and more personalized), clothes (Glam.com and Stardoll.com), and even money management.

So what's the business model? I'll "friend" British Airways, which will say, "We see you're going to Moscow next month. Why not fly through London and we'll give you 10,000 extra miles?" I'm no longer in a bucket of frequent travelers, my privacy protected. I'm an individual with specific travel plans, which I intentionally make visible to preferred vendors. British Airways, of course, will pay Dopplr a handsome sponsorship fee to be eligible to be my "friend" (just as a Nike rep might pay to sponsor a basketball game and be part of the community). Someday NetJets may show up, offering to ferry me and my friends to a conference we'll be attending together."

It's interesting when you look at the changed dynamic here.

The user is in complete control, they are only inviting the friends they want, to be inside their walled garden and the brand friends have to behave in a very specific way.

Note: This is not Facebook with unsolicited ads coming at you from all sides.

This new world requires a lot from brands.

1. Are they trustworthy and good enough to be considered "friends" in the first place?

Do they have a powerful enough brand reputation?

Are they interesting enough?

2. Once they become a friend-Are they a smart friend or a dumb friend?- do they just spam offers without intelligence or do they know user behavior and needs in rich enough detail, so offers can be tailored?

This requires using data correctly and perhaps the means and ability to create billions of tailored offers (ads?) in real time.

3. Are they prepared to be flexible?- change their voice to be more personal, sound friendly and on the consumers side, perhaps even negotiate to win over a customer

Overall, Esther's scenario represents a radically changed relationship one that could be truly one to one and one where brand respect has to be continuously earned and maintained.

Posted by Ed Cotton "Advertising is a tax you pay for unremarkable thinking."

Robert Stephens, founder of GeekSquad

Via Social Customer Manifesto


Posted by Ed Cotton