Two final questions must be considered in this eighth and final post. What does the future hold for brands in a world where tribes have a bigger and more effective platform upon which to organise and converse? What does the future hold for Television?
In his book “Tribes” Seth Godin makes this provocative remark:
“Brand management is so 1999”.
No doubt he would have his detractors, but he goes on:
“Brand management was top down, internally focused, political and money based. It involved an MBA managing the brand, the ads, the shelf space, etc. The MBA argued with product development and manufacturing to get decent stuff, and with the CFO to get more cash to spend on ads.
Tribe management is a whole different way of looking at the world.
It starts with permission, the understanding that the real asset most organizations can build isn't an amorphous brand but is in fact the privilege of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who want to get them.
It adds to that the fact that what people really want is the ability to connect to each other, not to companies. So the permission is used to build a tribe, to build people who want to hear from the company because it helps them connect, it helps them find each other, it gives them a story to tell and something to talk about.
And of course, since this is so important...everything the organization does is to feed and grow and satisfy the tribe.
People form tribes with or without us. The challenge is to work for the tribe and make it something even better.”
You may have problems agreeing with this but consider the following chart containing the predictions of Forrester Research, a reputable technology research house. Study carefully the ominous words in the top right had box – “online groups supplant brands”. What’s even scarier is the time-frame in Forresters predicts this will happen. Consider that brands will “lean on groups to define products”. Consider the new agency model: “A new PR agency emerges that represents online groups – not brands”. This from the folks that are not only seeing what’s going on but measuring it too.
For a contemporary example of this at work go to Mumsnet.com, a social enterprising “tribe” of women who either are considering getting pregnant, are pregnant or who are post natal. It is a colossal entity with massive power. As you read, British political parties are carrying their fight to this influential portal. Any brand that doesn’t align with its mission is refused entry; like Nestle whose baby formula ads were barred.
So while brands will by no means disappear, their power won’t come to he who can command share of voice above the line...but by he who owns the biggest share of conversations amongst tribes and communities, be they online OR offline.
Question 2: “What will become of TV as a channel for my beloved 30’ film? After all, the fun part of my job is sipping foamy cappuccinos with the creative emos at Dumblebum, Doodlebill and Bottom”.
Let’s consider the NFL Super Bowl as a test laboratory in which to study the changes the 30’ slot is undergoing. After all, more and more American’s are drawn to the Gridiron spectacular not just for the football but for the commercial breaks too. When Pepsi gambled big by turning its back on 23 years of history with the Super Bowl some saw it as the writing on the wall for thematic advertising. The move which, according to Nielsen, was more than vindicated by massive PR value saw a redirection of funds into a social media project called “Pepsi Refresh”, an undertaking that offered people the chance to vote for worthwhile community projects.
The Super Bowl - Not just about the Football
Forrester, however, was quick to but the brakes on any speculation that this spelled the death of TV. In an excellent commentary the researcher reminds us that while Pepsi’s move was bold, (even radical), social media should never be seen as an end in itself, merely a means to an end. Besides, the move was as much a branding statement to a young and tech-savvy audience who Pepsi knew would reward such a move.
Though very few other brands went as far as Pepsi, virtually every brand that produced a 30’ TVC for the Super Bowl, did it’s damndest to amplify the material in social networks anyway. In many ways, as one analyst put it, TV is moving from being the master to being the servant.
Thus, Forrester says, TV is not going away but “will be fighting for marketing dollars on an increasingly level playing field with social and interactive tactics”. In a nutshell, social networks are moving forward rapidly but TV is standing still.
One last thought before I shut up:
While studying psychology I once took a course in “participative research” – an unorthodox investigative approach involving the collaboration and cooperation of the researcher with his subjects on a challenge or project that is important to the latter. Rather than parachuting in on the subject for a few sessions of qualitative or quantitative thumb-screwing, the emphasis is on “walking a mile in their moccasins”; becoming one of them whilst sharing in the highs and lows of the journey they themselves are on. A more formal definition is provided by Wikipedia – “... is a recognized form of research that focuses on the effects of the researcher's direct actions of practice within a participatory community with the goal of improving the performance quality of the community or an area of concern”.
In social media, we have a rare offer from the Gods of marketing to both communicate with consumers and study them at the same time.
This auspicious dichotomy is summed up in an old story which tells of a conversation between Mother Theresa and a journalist. Said the latter: “The change you have brought to the people of Calcutta is amazing”
Said she: “You do not understand, I have not changed the people of Calcutta...they have changed me”.
No comments:
Post a Comment