mediation

Fighting the Future: reaching a rose-tinted concensus at the IPA 44 Club's Future of Advertising in a Networked Society

A short history of marketing from jabi on Vimeo.

the rather lovely above video - by jabi - neatly sums up the collective dilemma of how brands, marketers and, specifically, agencies address the challenge of social media.  the issue was the topic of discussion last night at the IPA 44 Club's inaugural event of 2009: The future of advertising in a networked society.  quite the session it was... here's the gist:

part one - report findings

• social media = the online tools and platforms people use to share information, thoughts, opinions, content etc
• problems is that brands are "crashing the party rather than hosting it" (Russell Davies)
• many brands are experimenting but not getting traction in the area
• we need a model of comms that reflects 'ME' as opposed to 'brand'
• a model that's about conversation and participation rather than interruption and engagement
• a model that incorporates David Armano's thinking about 'influence ripples'
• Johnny X by Dare is a cracking example
• which succeeded in concentrating the feeds into and out of it's online space (64% of upstream and 84% of downstream feeds came from 10 sites each)
• planning social media should focus on targeting the few, that demonstrate: (1) expansiveness (propensity to chatter), (2) popularity (propensity to filter and target) and (3) reciprocity (likelihood to act)
• network size is predictable, as is network flow, as is circulation

part two - agency survey

• brands in a socially-networked world are more responsible for creating and disseminating the right information - brands should be more discretionary in what they produce [Mediation found this less than substantiated and at odds with Clay Shirky's comments at the MGEITF this year on filtering in a content-abundant world being after the fact, ie produce then allow the network to filter]
• the way to reward brand advocates is not through financial incentive
• the industry disagrees on two areas: (1) that advertising principles are the same in a networked society and (2) that social media behaves in a fundamentally new way
• it is believed that most revenue is up for grabs in content creation, then data & insight, then market research & insight gathering (amongst others)
• these new revenue streams represent £11bn of additional revenue opportunity, with another £5bn potentially
• ...which would be (exactly!) enough to meet the £16bn shortfall in industry revenues by 2016 predicted by the IPA's Future of Advertising and Agencies report of two years ago (£16bn = the difference between the IPA's 'Central' and 'Consumer' Scenarios)

part three - the discussion

I won't bullet this because it's getting late and you had to be there, but this was the better part of the evening with discussion ranging between philosophy of brands in a social media space to the (inevitable) measurement and accountability of such activity.

for me a kind of rose-tinted consensus was reached; consensus that went along the lines of:

• marketing has always been about great social networking, the challenge is the same - getting the right content in the right place, its just that...
• (1) people power is more potent (we have 500 networked connections not 50 disparate ones) and (2) we need to react to the context our message are in rather than control the context our messages are in
• it's brilliant because we can react to real people in real time in the context of a real conversations
• social media isn't a bolt on, it has to be woven into every brand touchpoint
• brands need to behave differently, and understand that their relationship with consumers is - to consumers - much less important than consumers' relationships with other consumers

so in a nutshell social media is great because it's as old as the hills, better than the disruption model, measurable ...and there's a freak-off big commercial opportunity for the brands and agencies that get it right.

I just don't think that it' that easy.  our industry is woefully unprepared for the future.  there's some brilliant thinking and debate going on, but the commercial models, joined-up industry measurement systems, and marketing best practice principles - from a 'what works' as opposed to a 'self-regulatory' point of view - just aren't moving fast enough.

most importantly, not enough consideration was given to the integration of broadcast and social media.  they're not going to exist in isolation and broadcast media is going nowhere. iTunes didn't kill CDs and Amazon didn't kill Waterstones.  social media certainly won't kill mainstream broadcast media; the same mainstream broadcast media that in the vast majority of instances provides social media users with the content they comment on, pass on, or reappropriate for their own ends.

the other interesting question is how the behaviour of digital natives will evolve...  we're familiar with the media 'hubs' that are the current crop of adolescent's bedrooms; they're multi-tasking away across ten devices and infinite bits of content.  but what happens when they grow-up?  how much of their social media behaviour will they take with them into adulthood and how much will they replace with the aggregated broadcast consumption of their parents?

we live in interesting times; and I guess we wouldn't have it any other way.

one last word, I urge you to read JVW's post about the event and specifically his debate on how the IPA can use social media to get their social media report into more people's hands whilst not impacting on revenues.  a pleasure and a joy.

When finance gets friendly: how Barclays and RBS are using comms to charm customers

spotted.  sign in a Barclays bank window in Buxton, Derbyshire.  if you walk into this bank you are - officially - one of the loveliest people in the town.  welcome to marketing post credit crunch; where the banks are the bad guys with the perceived need to re-engage with the customers on whose savings (and borrowing) they depend.

the problem is that I'm not quite sure a sign saying 'you're lovely' is quite going to cut it given the spate of irresponsible banking practices that helped in their own little way to bring about a global credit crunch.  it's a fine gesture but does feel rather duplicitous given the scarce availability of credit and the limited extent to which government interest rate cuts are being passed on to consumers.

I'm told (thanks Phil G) that this started out as a employee-facing initiative, to make them feel (even) better about working at Barclays.  this makes sense and in many ways extending it to customers is analogous to what Halifax achieved for a long time with Howard et al.  but you have to question the tone in a customer-facing communication given the current economic climate.

unfortunately being overly nice seems to have caught on like a flu in the banking sector of late.  this from Stephen Hester, chief exec of RBS:

"At RBS we will take seriously our duty to support our customers and try hard to avoid a repeat of the events that have weakened us. We need to rebuild our strength, to work closely with Government and the communities we serve" (source)

supporting communities, that's nice.

from Mediation's point of view there's a real opportunity here for a bank that's prepared to break the mold in the current climate and take customer commitment beyond window displays telling them they're nice or press releases about community support.  something like a First Direct approach for the credit-crunch age...

communications that provide advice and education in a rapidly changing financial climate.  communications that offer transparency about the positions and propositions of banks.  communications that talk honestly about the state we're in rather than the currently emerging knee-jerk reactions that lead to 'you can trust us because we're the biggest or the longest or the fastest' ads.

the opportunity is there for the taking.  customers are no doubt feeling bad enough about their financial futures without a barrage of 'buy me' - or worse 'like me' - coming at them...

but if you are one of those customers don't feel too bad; remember, you're lovely.

Here we go again: why brands should care whether or not viewers trust that their votes will count

the last few weeks have seen the spectre of viewer trust raise its head again, but unlike last year's Blue Peter name-the-cat debacle and Ant and Dec's Jiggygate affairs, recent events are far more opaque.

last time round, the cheating was obvious.  judgments were delivered and calls were made that clearly ignored the voice of viewers.  sanctions were duty handed out and much hand-wringing ensued.  everyone learned their lesson, got it off their collective chests at Edinburgh, and everything was OK again, right?

well no actually.  because the last few weeks have seen the voting viewer confidence undermined once more, again in the arena that is Saturday night event reality TV, and by both ITV and the BBC.

first up we had Dianagate courtesy of the X-factor.  to cut a long story short she let rip at a bonfire party, was ill, the producers gave her a get out of jail free card and Laura went out.  cue a call for the decision to be referred to Ofcom, a massive online petition to get Laura back in, and a mention in Parliament.

up next we had of course Sergeantgate on the BBC.  one of the biggest stories of last week saw the big guy pull out saying "The trouble is that there is now a real danger that I might win the competition. Even for me that would be a joke too far."  Sergeant hinted at the existence of pressure to go (from the BBC / judges / other contestants), The Daily Mail suggested that the reason was a P&O cruise that was beckoning, whilst Richard & Judy writing in the Express blamed his wife.

why does this matter?  why is this getting a post?  why can't we all just accept that it's just a TV show, get over it and all agree to get along?  and most importantly why should brands have any beef with all this?

because it's either reality TV or its not - if Sergeant winning isn't an option (in his or anyone else's mind) he shouldn't be taking part in the first place; if we're going to ask the time and money of viewers to participate then they have to believe that their contribution will count.

because the principles of viewer interaction and contribution are too important to allow rules to be broken.  because the principle of 'have your say and the majority will determine the outcome' has got to be seen to be upheld.  and most of all because the difference between voting-viewer and contributer / co-creator is in name only...

in both the above cases we're asking people to engage with branded content.  similarly in both cases the decision of producers - to allow Diana to stay and to allow John to go - took the ability to control the outcome out of the hands of viewers and into the hands of producers.

brands should tread carefully where Saturday night producers seemingly don't fear to tread.  in a digital age that demands engagement and co-creation with brands thru media, brands (1) have to remain transparent and (2) have to be content for power - once devolved - to lie and remain with their consumers.

this is the reward for engagement; the quid pro quo for the time and energy of getting involved; consumer ROI if you like.  time will tell what the fall-out is for X-Factor and Strictly - but brands that fail to learn the lessons will find it less easy to waltz off in to the sunset with their credibility intact.

Don't say, do: how HBO's Voyeur showed the world how great a storyteller it is.

Jonny (thanks Jonny) pointed me in the direction of the above describing HBO's 2007 Voyeur activity, a campaign that won the Best Integrated Promotional Campaign at this year's Cannes.  great example of how brands should do rather than say.

advertising so often get's in the way...  we want people to think of us as great storytellers so let's make an ad about storytelling.  this campaign missed that cul-de-sac by a mile and instead created a campaign that immersed viewers in stories on their terms...  this was the objective from the start, this from the info on the above YouTube page:

"the campaign goal was to fortify HBO against increasing competition by strengthening the brand's relationship with super-fans. Incredibly engaged in all forms of media, they seek intelligent, cutting-edge entertainment experiences. Super-fans recognize HBO as one of the few brands that respects their intelligence. They don't just watch HBO programs - they're completely involved and engaged before, during and after a show.The creative task was to ignite this same level of passion around the HBO brand itself"

a website was of course integral, but mobiles, on-demand and blogs took the story much further.  for me though the best bit about this campaign was the outdoor projection.  we too often miss opportunities to use real spaces to bring campaigns to life...  context tells us that as content proliferates consumers prefer and expect real experiences (cost of recorded music coming down whilst live goes up etc)

innovative - digital-led - ways to take campaigns to the streets are too few and far between, but the reward is there for the brands that can integrate the physical and the digital so seamlessly and to the mutual benefit of each.

From theory to practice: the challenge of planning Transmedia

Keith Arem's graphic novel Ascend, for which a game is currently in development

it's now been over two years since Faris bought transmedia planning to our attention in his post of the same name on TIGS.  the theory has been well expounded in the period since then; with a post by Jason Oke at Leo Burnett Toronto which explored the TP concept within the context of a single ad quickly kicking things off.

I'm sure that the idea of TP has cropped up in most media, comms and ad agencies by now...  it certainly has in Mediation's.  but we've yet to see - as far as I can make out - a significant campaign emerge based on TP principles.  the same is actually true of the entertainment industry; in an interview with Games TM magazine(edition 75), Henry Jenkins - the Godfather of TP - concedes that truly persuasive examples have yet to arrive.

they're doing better than us though.  transmedia planning should be everywhere by now.  the theory is familiar and is not only relatively unchallenged, but is offers the very solution to some of the biggest marketing challenges of the moment.  of its many advantages, the primary benefit has to be the extent to which it pays back on the time taken to consume it.  Jenkins goes on to observe that "regardless of the commercial motives behind it, transmedia entertainment done well also provides rewards for fans".

so why is getting the theory working in practice so difficult?  here's some starters for ten...

firstly, the financial investment required.  the reason the best examples of TM largely remain in the entertainment arena (the Matrix, Cloverfield, Heroes, Lost etc) because it takes a significant chunk of investment to develop and then create the content often required.  the commercial models for Fox or Paramount are set up to do this, the commercial models for marketeers often aren't.

but this is a bit of a cop out.  for the cost of making three 30 second ads you can certainly afford to make an episodic drama for online distribution.  and no it doesn't matter if it's not going to go on broadcast TV because those people who consume AV content online are exactly those people most likely to 'get' transmedia narratives...  this means of course that the media budgeting has to evolve just as much as the production pot.

no, the real issues in making TP happen lie much closer to home than 'we don't have the budget' territory.  they are twofold, the first of which is we're bound to the conventions of the media spaces we use.  in the Games TM article mentioned above, Keith Arem discusses the TM principles behind his graphic novel Ascend (the image above).  he observes that:

"if a project requires a 30-minute budget introduction, games can do that, but the medium could just as easily offer six high-budget five-hour episodes to revolutionise the story.  film and television are still limited by rigid series structures and minimum lengths".

advertisers on those channels are bound by those same conventions; conventions we as an industry - planners, buyers and media-owners (and indeed Ofcom) alike need to start challenging.  it's the limitations of the spot model that in many cases is preventing transmedia's breakthrough into broadcast channels; and as long as transmedia only exists online, it's unlikely to capture the imagination of marketeers or the budgets of FDs.

but the final barrier to making TM happen in brand comms is the closet to home of all.  Jenkins notes that TM experiences can "be a source of ... frustration [for consumers] if it's inconsistent, undermines the coherence of the work, or promises insights it never delivers".  Arem's solution is simple: "have a good team of like-minded individuals around you ... my philosophy for all of our projects is to have a core team to supervise all creative and technical aspects of the production.  the main focus of that team is to keep the story and assets consistent, and integrate them with the entire franchise".

I think you know where I'm going with this.  agency structures are lucky if they can do this internally let alone with other agencies, resulting in the presention of a joined up and unified transmedia solution to a client.  not only might different creative agencies have to work to one vision, but that vision has to be molded by the space planned by its media agency, and of course vice versa.

the reality is that as long as the conversation with a client only gets as far as "how big is the pack shot?", both agencies and clients will be bound to a dynamic that not only acts as a barrier to transmedia planning, but actively works against it emerging into the mainstream where it so surely deserves to belong.

When promotions go bad: what brands can learn from Leading Hotels of the World's response to a PR nightmare

in a post back in April Mediation commented on Hoxton Hotel's £1 room sale, observing that the success of the promotion created very much a double-edged sword; with fulfillment issues due to massive demand causing a negative CRM fallout.

Hoxton Hotel no doubt sympathises with The Leading Hotels of the World group, who this week were forced to completely abandon a promotion when massive demand for what was a very attractive offer - $500 rooms going for $19.28 (the price of a room the year of their founding 80 years ago) - became massively oversubscribed.

this is a genuine disaster for the brand, but the situation has been significantly mitigated by the group's response to the situation...

one, take ownership.

the above statement has been posted on their website and emailed to those who applied for the offer.  Ted Teng, President and CEO of the organisation commented that "Although our original back-up plan provided a viable solution for the 150,000 people who were registered, it was met with some confusion over submission procedures and timing ... We are sincerely committed to restoring your faith in our brand and do not want to risk disappointing you again".

two, engage in the debate.

the brand quickly engaged themselves in online conversations about the promotion. in a forum on the flyertalk website.  Marshall Calder, SVP of Marketing at The Leading Hotels responded to posts by explaining the situation and what was being done to rectify it.  the response of contributors to the forum is telling...

SanDiego1k comments "I think this is a sound decision. It is very classy of you to make the hard decision, then return to advise us. Thank you" ... Irish Lad adds "I think that makes a lot of sense in the circumstances. I appreciate this must have been a difficult day for the management at LHW ... good luck with the rest of the promotion and thanks for posting today."

three, communicate that you're working towards a solution.

Calder adds, "since we do not wish to disappoint anyone again, we shall re-tool the $19.28 promotion and communicate the details to all registrants within the next week."

if it was consumer communications on the internet that caused the problem, then it's corporate communications on the internet that will go a very long way towards fixing it.  there's a lesson for all brands in Leading Hotel's response to the situation... brands can't remain detached from consumer conversations, especially when those conversations are generating negative WOM about a brand.  in fact quite the opposite is true: the response of Leading Hotels may generate from a potentially disastrous situation more goodwill than their promotion could have ever hoped for.

thanks to Hanson for the heads up on what's going down in the hotel world...

Shaking up YouTube: Brilliantly creative use of YouTube courtesy of Wii

click the above picture or here to see some brilliantly creative use of YouTube for Wii's 'WarioLand Shake It' game.  very smart breaking of the conventions of the YouTube infrastructure to bring to life the nature of the game...

in fact it says much about just how used we've come to the left-hand-screen-surrounded-by-other-clickables format that when it starts to fall apart it is really rather unnerving.  and the fact that you can still click on the components of the page once it's been destroyed is just genius.

lovely lovely stuff.  thanks to Daryl at Vizeum for the heads up.

What brands can learn from Superstruct's invitation to fix the future

you are officially invited to create and explore the world in 2019. but be warned, it's not going to be pretty.  the Institute For The Future has developed Superstruct, an ARG that aims - with a massive number of players' help - to chronicle the dark future they predict for us, then help them fix it.

"With Superstruct IFTF introduces a revolutionary new forecasting tool: Massively Multiplayer Forecasting Games (MMFGs). MMFGs are collaborative, open source simulations of a possible future. Each MMFG focuses on a unique set of “future parameters,” which we cull from IFTF’s forecast research. These parameters define a future scenario: a specific combination of transformative events, technologies, discoveries and social phenomenon that are likely to develop in the next 10 to 25 years. We then open up the future to the public, so that players can document their personal reactions to the scenario." [source]

its a fascinating concept.  taking the ARG to the next level and using Surowiecki's Wisdom of Crowds to capture and identify our most likely (and most successful) responses to multiple 21st Century threats.  you can join the simulation and watch videos outlining the 'superthreats' we face on the Superstruct website.

brands could learn a lot from this endeavour.  at it's most basic, the IFTF - thru Superstruct - is encouraging a community of people to engage with an idea.  that isn't a million miles from what most advertisers want people to do - only they generally use advertising to convey the idea.  and are then a bit vague about how people can get involved; other than buy stuff of course.

but if a brand really wanted to break the mold.  if a marketing team really wanted to explore and communicate something in which they believed by creating a platform thru which a community of people could genuinely engage with the idea, the brand and each other... they could.  think how much more powerful M&S's Plan A campaign would have been if they had engaged with a massive community of people to explore ways to make sure we didn't have to resort to plan b.  think how much more traction you could get by using media to communicate the project and report its progress.

the risks are huge.  you have to be radically transparent; but most brands have to be radically transparent already.  if you get it wrong no one will care; but if you get it wrong now people can filter your messages out.  you have to be hyper-creative; but creativity has never been more important.  you have to rely on people pro-actively and constructively contributing to the platform; but people demonstrate time and time again that this is something they're increasingly comfortable doing.

and if the risks are huge, the rewards are greater.  get it right and you not only engage an audience in something your brand stands for, but your brand may even make a bit of a difference...  as well as creating affinity and customer value - and therefore revenues - on the way...

Smart and Relevant Customer Relationship Building from Atlantic

a lovely example of talking to your existing customers from Atlantic Gas and Electric who this week sent me two free energy saving light bulbs.  I - like many people I suspect - get a plethora of items through the letterbox from brands with which I have an association; egg in particular is never shy of sending me an invitation to increase my ARPU.

so great to see Atlantic putting their CRM where there mouth is and sending me something which is tangible, practical and above all pertinent to the credentials there aiming to build.  more of this please.

I Loved it So Much I Bought (Into) The Company: the rise of the crowdmanaged brand

so those observant people at Springwise have spotted the latest brand to cede control to its potential consumers.  hot on the heels of crowdmanaged eco clothing company nvohk and MyFootballClub's purchase of Ebbsfleet United comes BeerBankroll.com.

for just $50 you get to join an online community for beer lovers where you can not only share your passion for beer but at the same time help create a brewing company.  as Springwise reports, the site:

"...is currently recruiting a minimum of 50,000 members, each of whom will contribute USD 50 in exchange for voting rights on ideas such as the company name, logo, product design, product mix, marketing plan, advertising and sponsorship ... Assuming the concept goes well, profits will be divided three ways: one part to members in the form of reward points redeemable for products from the Beer Bankroll store; one part back to the company; and one part to charity"

this potentially potent project is feasible because of tho things: (1) access to information and (2) the ability to share and manipulate that information within the context of a networked community.  and it of course relies on Surowiecki's three requirements for Wisdom in a Crowd: diversity of opinion, decentralisation and independence.

I used to work with a small brewery brand and I acutely recall conversations about how they could, and should, more effectively and transparantely engage with those consumers who (we knew) loved their brand.  but the old habits of deployment of planned branded communications won out (and still does - I observe - to this day).

that brewery and many other brands should be paying close attention to this space.  how long before we all have a couple of side-interests in brands...?  brands that will not only occupy a small - very engaged - part of our mind, but a considerable share of our wallet too.  after all, if the brand was so good that you bought and continue to buy into it, why - when you get to the shelf - would you buy anything else?!