With Google+ launching for brands and thanks to circles, allowing a relatively easy (and measurable) flow of information within and outside the enterprise (I’ve begun experimenting with this @ Myntra), linking employees, consumers, partners etc through not just sharing but also through live video interaction, Facebook does need to go beyond its current offering for brands and organisations.

Though I’ve not seen it in action, Twitters new proposition for brands, with better profiles, a new twist to promoted tweets, self serving ads etc do sound interesting and should probably lead to more interesting brand activities on the platform.

The first generation of social media tools have focused on monitoring, engagement and some measuring. They will obviously have to evolve with the platforms’ own feature set advancements. (not to mention new platforms) Meanwhile, I’ve seen at least two forms of this evolution. Salesforce, which has, with the acquisition of Rypple, entered the talent management sphere, continues its march towards being a one stop shop (Chatter for enterprise collaboration, Radian 6 for social media monitoring, engagement and others). On another front, Percolate is aiming to solve an interesting problem area that I can identify with – sustained communication with consumers across platforms that balances interesting content with business objectives.

New platforms, new tools, decreasing attention spans, new hardware and technologies and a relentless pace of advancement – 2012 promises to be exciting.

until next time, horizon tally

Then came Facebook and Twitter, and RSS died several times if we go by the blog posts. Facebook for me has been and is a social graph. The only way my interest graph has crept in (in terms of content discovery and consumption) is in the form of pop culture. Can that change? I wouldn’t write it off. Twitter started out as an interest graph, but when it scaled, it began flirting with social graphs. For me, it’s now both, and I find that difficult to work with. It’s probably a bit of my laziness too – curating who I follow, making corresponding lists etc erm, not done. Anyway, my discovery and sharing on that network is minimal now. So, in that respect, the curation I expect on these platforms is minimal too.

Purely by activity, it would seem that I am more active on my interest graph networks now. I wonder if I am alone in not being sure of mixing my interest and social graphs -Delicious, Foursquare, GoodReads., and until recently, (generically) Reader. The curation is by a set of people I trust in that domain, and any ‘social’ that happens remains ‘by the way’.

Google didn’t even see the social boat IMO, and when they did, it was too far out. Wave, Buzz: crash, silenced. But while writing the WT5 column late last week, I found that Google+ has been creeping in everywhere – search results, news, Reader (I haven’t forgiven you, Google) and building in features like Mutual Circle Chat and search options.  I was thinking about this when I received one of my best sources of curation these days – the weekly Only Dead Fish newsletter (email, how ironic ), and that’s where I saw this excellent post titled ‘From destination social to distributed social : why Google+ is the Trojan horse of the social web‘

That’s exactly what Google seems to be doing. Unlike Facebook, which built THE social network and then tried to link consumption on other sites in an ‘oh, okay, fine’ way, Google is playing a balance act, and to its strengths. By giving me the tools to build a social network on Google+, and simultaneously being present at my points of consumption, Google is making me play curator to both social and interest graphs. If all goes well, I think Google will not only collect data, but also build several social networks based on interest graphs. Google’s cash cow still doesn’t have much to do with all this, but once the networks are built, Google will have better contexts for AdSense, based on a really smart social algorithm.

I have always believed that Android is the next Google. Still do, but now I think that Google+ is a contender too. Or maybe the social OS will be built by them together.

until next time, evil graphs

Bonus: A Google Ventures backed app on iPhone named Stamped – very relevant in this context.

When I read the announcement, I immediately thought of brand identity. In the initial days of Google+ launch, the circles feature that allowed users to compartmentalise their different identities created a little flutter. It helped that, at that point, Facebook’s options for achieving the same ends were pretty well concealed. The visual identities of the brands on Google+ remain consistent with other online and offline platforms and so far, so do the tone and activities.

I have a different identity for different sets of people I deal with. Work, Friends, Family, Acquaintances, Twitter connections etc. How I behave with them and what I share with them varies too. (though there are overlaps)  I thought about this from a brand’s perspective. My relationship with a brand is different from the one that another person has. (use cases, context etc) And if I do have to share this relationship, what I’d share and the way I would share it would also vary among my own different audience sets.  In a world where the consumers are moving towards a fluid identity, do brands have to consider one too?

In the real world, brands sometimes tweak their identity according to geography. This was reasonable and worked fine in an era of mass media. With the internet, the whole world would easily see the changes across geography. And the end consumer could ask questions too. He/she even expects the brand to communicate like a human. If we consider different networks as different geographies, with peculiar consumption patterns (of information, for starters), does the consistency that brand currently focuses on become a constraint? Considering that different platforms have different advantages and are used for different objectives, how fluid can the brand and its communication be, on the web and off it?

until next time, identity crises

For a lot of people that I know virtually, the answer would be Twitter. My relationship with Twitter has had several kinds of highs and lows over 4 years. For the last few months, it has been a constant though, and is a very limited relationship. Somewhere in the journey, Twitter became too crowded for me.

Thankfully there was another ‘social network’ that has been my bedrock for a long while now, and that is my answer for the question asked earlier – Google Reader. Reader is not a network that has grown exponentially for me. My network there does not exceed a dozen, and without referring to it, I can name the people I connect with, and why.

I rely on Mahendra to give me the latest news and best perspectives in tech. Ditto with Prasoon, whose “Share with note” gives me the money-shot notes in posts I should, but am too lazy to read. Surekha keeps me up-to-date on media and PR news that I wouldn’t otherwise know about. Balu – despite being an NRI now – unearths India-specific tech posts I’d ordinarily have missed, and gives me vicarious experiences of the world of gaming. Gautam John provides mouth-watering food posts and news/views on India/Wiki that everyone should know about and have a considered view on. Vedant gets quoted in many blog posts that I write – on this blog and the personal one – as the source of the work that started a thought in my head. There’s Josh Rutner, who must be reading a zillion posts to discover the insane stuff he shares. Rahi is a relatively new connection, and I have to thank her for some of the best blog posts get to read these days. Anand somehow has a way of bringing to my notice posts that I missed in their first run, and I silently thank him each time. Just when I think Patrix has gone away from Reader, he shares an excellent post that grabs my attention. My network on reader would notice a name that’s conspicuous by its absence – and that happens to be my favourite Reader buddy – Roshni. If she has shared it, it has to be read, because one way or the other, the piece will deliver! That, ladies and gentlemen, is my Reader network, and that long paragraph would explain why I was shattered when Google decided to get evil with Reader.

The BBH Labs post, and the research has this to say about strong ties - those who know you well know what type of information is novel for you. Over a period of time, the network and I have grown to know each other very well indeed. Once upon a time I had a theory that once everyone figured out everyone else’s sources on Reader, shares would become unimportant and I’d never discover anything new. I was obviously stupid, and guilty of hugely underestimating my network because they were constantly filtering and building new sources to learn, and help me learn. It made Reader the best echo chamber I ever had, and this post is so that I, and the web, remember it, always. “Oh oww, Oh oww, Oh oww.”

until next time, MAAR – Mark All As Read

But when I consider this from a brands’ perspective, I sense an equally grey area. The brand is usually represented on social networks as a logo and a ‘voice’ that cannot be tied down to a person. Most studies indicate that consumers/users would rather talk to a person than a brand. But that also sets the stage for a BBC-Twitter like incident to happen, a scenario I had written about a couple of years back. I have seen only a few interesting alternatives. (eg. Chicago Tribune’s Twitter directory or adopting a persona like Hippo)  There is a different side to it too – how many brand managers would like to associate themselves with the product they manage? (for various reasons) When agencies manage social platforms on behalf of clients, what is the best way to present that? A person has many identities, some he/she wants to share, and some others he/she does not, a brand is rarely given this leeway.

I feel that in all the time that has elapsed since my earlier post, the networks have not yet built systems that allow brands to fully explore the ‘people-conversations’ aspect that makes social work. Twitter and Facebook, the premium players, both lack a way to surface the identities of the people tied to the brand, in context. There is only so much a Twitter bio can hold, and no one looks at the Info tab on Facebook. (LinkedIn is best placed, but very few brand centric discussions happen there.) The focus, whether it’s Facebook’s Ads API or Twitter’s promoted tweets, seems to be on broadcast, albeit more targeted. Foursquare is still early in the game, but the self-serve brand pages are a decent step. I hope Google considers all this when they do allow brands to play on Google+.

If a platform does manage to work it out, it would be helpful for all concerned. Brands could apportion responsibilities. Monitoring systems and reaction mechanisms could build in roles, ‘filters’ and ‘rights’ accordingly, and users would know exactly who to speak to for what issue? The other way, of course, is for brands to build that network themselves, feeding in data, personas and conversations from existing networks. That way, they can even assign responsibility to early adopters within the organisation to test out new platforms on their behalf, and communicate that. With the rise of SoLoMo (social, location, mobile), the need for a distributed social architecture is now of much importance.

until next time, a brand’s personal identity

The context: I observed that, on my Plus stream ( I have ‘circled’ about 150 people), a few people were sharing the same content they did on Twitter and LinkedIn, presented the same way as well. I could understand why they would use these as distribution networks because it is difficult to accurately predict who catches what in busy streams. But what did surprise me was this content being shared as ‘Public’ on Google Plus, when it is very easy to create circles of people with common interest and share accordingly. (using earlier interactions on other networks or even what they share on Plus) And so I asked

Predictably, the most insightful comment came from Iqbal, who nailed it with “we are used to the environment defining the limits of who we share with – rather than having the ability to choose and consciously picking one set of people over another, every time we have something to say.” In this context, I remembered an excellent post by JP Rangaswami on the subject of filters, publishers and subscribers. While I agree with his summation that “We can only fix filter failure by providing subscribers with better filters, by providing publishers with tools that allow subscribers to filter better“, I did feel that in the interim, till the environment (/infrastructure) is able to deliver this at least to a certain degree of satisfaction (it’s a dynamic scenario, not likely to be completely perfect), publishers (us) should filter our output too.

All of this led me to a comparison of this scenario to that of brands as publishers. Thanks to traditional media platforms, brands had an environment which to a large extent defined the what/who/where/how of marketing communication. Few brands have been able to cope with the explosion of platforms and the freedom, choices and protocols that come with it. As consumers become filters and learn selective broadcast, exploring and navigating the platforms might be a good idea for brands, but it might be a better idea to (also) invest in a content-communication infrastructure which can be customised to meet both the dynamics – the brand’s messaging needs and the consumer’s sharing habits. (in the brand’s context)

until next time, helpless to help+

When consumers hear about a product today, their first reaction is ‘Let me search online for it.’ And so they go on a journey of discovery: about a product, a service, an issue, an opportunity. Today you are not behind your competition. You are not behind the technology. You are behind your consumer.

That reminded of the title of a post last month from Mitch Joel – “The Ever-Evolving Consumer Evolves (Again)“, in which he talks about how consumers are now more advanced than marketers in terms of technology and how they communicate. Quite agree in general, though it varies with geography, kind of demographic and so on.

Simplistically put, word of mouth with a technology assist. You’d say that every ‘social media’ presentation has a version of it, and I’d have to agree. But the interesting part is how brands react. For the purpose of this post, let me give you a contemporary tool based example.

Within a few days of the launch of Google +, a few brands jumped on to the wagon. They weren’t just content sites, but regular brands. Only to be told by Google to lay off until they were officially allowed to. Were the brands behind the consumers in this case? Or technology tool? Not. But even if they were allowed to operate in Plus, would that guarantee a success story? Not necessarily. That’s probably because many a time, when brands (and brand managers) get to know about technology, they choose the easy way out. Order the agency to create a page/handle/group and get x number of fans/friends/followers, post some content to ‘tick’ engagement and then wait for the next shiny object. The harder way is to understand why people are active on the social platforms and the networks that are created within. In this context, relationship and trust. Something that brands lost when they made full use of the fact that traditional media didn’t allow consumers to talk back.

Mitch Joel is right when he says that brands finally found an answer to the first coming of the web. They answered the ‘why’ reasonably well – information, and built websites. But with an explosion in platforms and interactivity, the answers this time around aren’t that simple. Having a touch point at every new internet nation state is a great thing, but if brands look at the new shiny technology/service through the prism of why users are flocking to it, and go through the data – information – knowledge – wisdom path to figure out if/how they can use the technology/service to anticipate and meet consumer needs, they might be evolving a better and scalable strategy for the days ahead.

until next time, to corrupt a cricket line, platform is temporary, class is permanent

What I did find a bit disconcerting was the usage of these scores in brand strategy/promotions. (relevant link at the end of the post) The basic thought here is to identify ‘influencers’ and engage them for various purposes – from product design to communication, advocacy etc. Not a bad thought in itself, but I wonder if it is way too early in the evolution stage to try this out, because there are way too many variables, including trust, involved and many of them have probably not even been acknowledged, let alone tracked and measured.

The consumer decision making process is itself undergoing massive shifts thanks to an ever increasing slew of communication platforms and services, which allow consumers to speak to brands, and other consumers, and has mechanisms for rapid and wide spread. For example, I saw an interesting perspective on the McKinsey blog, which replaced the traditional funnel with a ‘consumer decision journey’ and discussed the need for changes in the brand’s approach so that different functions can be better aligned.

For a different perspective, take a look at this presentation (via Vijay Sankaran)

It makes a good case of why algorithms and ready made dashboards may not be the best solution possible to even finding the ‘right’ ‘influencers’. The way I see it, the current social platforms are only portion of the data, and there are going to be many more layers and sources. (earlier post ‘Data beyond Social‘)

But even though many, including myself, would agree to the observations in the presentation, the ways to scale it are still blurred because I’d say the human component still has a major role. But that might be something that will change in the longer term. In the short-medium term, considering the $ spent on many a media blitz, a better allocation of $ resources – into collecting and then converting the data deluge to actionable information – is what is warranted.

until next time, influence shell

The promised link: Involver is a platform that has partnered with Klout to allow brands to “interact with and reward fans on Facebook based on their Klout score” (via)

Bonus Reads: Resolving the Trust Paradox, and Prem’s post on ‘social’ in the buying process.

The first is this seemingly simple, but excellent post at HBR titled ‘A Logo is Not a Brand‘ which (to really summarise) explains how the brand is its strategy, the stories that its products tell, its calls to action, its customer service, its tone, attitude, its people, communication tools and its logo and visuals are all part of the brand. And he asks a very pertinent question in the end

Whether you know it or not, whether you have a swanky logo or not, you do have a brand. The question is whether or not it’s the brand you really want.

With social platforms and user voices that become more effective than the brand’s own, the likelihood of different perceptions is indeed high, but the good news is these very same tools also offer brands the opportunity to bridge the chasm.

The second post titled ‘Brand Building: Is Function the new Emotion‘ builds on the view (that I also subscribe to) that the best advertisement for a brand is its product. But the twist in the end is that “the functional integration into a consumer’s life creates an emotional bond” and sustaining it requires “superior performance and meaningful, empathetic innovation”. Completely agree, because it does tie into the idea of social business and identifying a workforce and processes that will help build and sustain it.

A brand’s purpose is something I have written about many times earlier on this blog. I found a very elegant brand framework – part of Leo Burnett’s Human Brands concept – in one of the Cannes 2011 decks. According to Mark Tutssel, Chief Creative Officer, “Brands which have a purpose, but don’t act dreamy, while brands which act without a purpose are noisy. And, for brands which lack both, they are lazy.” (via) The top right quadrant belongs to  ‘HumanKind’, and that’s where successful brands are.

So what prevents other brands from occupying it? One interesting answer I read was ‘Fear‘. As the post says, to build a leading brand, “organizational thinking must be on the creative plane (possibility and potential) not the competitive plane (hard bargains and discount pricing)”, and marketers are frightened of what this entails. The post even outlines a six step transformational cycle. Metrics are mentioned as a strong deterrent.

I have always felt that most advertising have not been measurable from an actual sales perspective. Parameters like TOM, salience in brand advertising are a no-brainer, but even in ‘performance’ advertising, there are so many factors that remain unaccounted for and unmeasured. But most brands go through the loops. We come back to the first reference about brands being a collection of various parts, a sentiment that is echoed in the last reference too, as the author defines leadership as “the quality of one’s presence in every aspect of life”. When organisations learn to do that, brand utopia will be nearer.

until next time, contrabrand