The coincidence in the timing was excellent, because it is related to a subject that has occupied my thoughts for a while now – brand stories in recent times. Notwithstanding recent splurges, a Google or Apple or even an Angry Birds has not really built a brand on advertising. On any given day, there are hundreds if not thousands of websites and blogs which compete among themselves to ensure they get the latest dope on these companies first.

For a while, I thought that this was largely due to the inherent domain association. Of the internet/mobile and therefore covered on the internet/mobile. But that’s not really true – Lady Gaga or Bieber or The Dark Knight Rises (check out Misentropy’s curated fan creations – Batmania) are not tech, they are popular culture, and yet they have all successfully built brand stories (also) using the internet to great effect. Are all music bands or movies operating at that level? Not. The only commonality I could notice was the ‘product is marketing’ (yes, even Bieber or Kim Kardashian actually belong here) credo, by design or not.  The product in this case need not (and is usually not) even be the core domain they’re operating in, it’s usually a core differentiator – in Gaga’s case, shock. I have no clue on Bieber, and Kim Kard’s sticks way out of the purview of this blog!

But despite the above, and exceptions, I also wondered whether brands of an earlier era were at a disadvantage because they operated not only in domains that had become commodities, but also operated within frameworks that made their activities templates. Not just from a planning perspective, but from communication platforms as well.

Thanks (also) to my weekly web wrap column, I noticed one interesting example of a brand that could weave its story into my life’s context – apparently by design. For 8 years, the Samsung TV and I have been staring at each other without getting into a relationship. But for the last few weeks, I’ve been scanning websites to check out the release of the Galaxy Nexus phone in India. The only other alternative I have in mind – the Galaxy S2. Samsung has piggybacked on Android to enter my life. However, just as this article states (about Samsung in the context of the Internet of Things), I’d say that Samsung has missed an opportunity in this regard. (though its Samsung Nation gamification based loyalty program looks interesting) The simple test being that I wouldn’t blink before changing my preferences if a different Android maker offered me a better product. But would I try a different OS family? Not a chance. Because, dessert name versions and all, Android is a story for me now.

So, simplistically, I see two gateways to story telling – it’s either the story or the telling. In the first case, the product is so different that it leads the story, and in the second, the product might be a commodity, but the telling is such that it creates a story. Classic examples for the latter are ‘Will it Blend?’ and ‘The Old Spice Man’, episodic thought they might seem. Depending on its domain and competitive landscape, each brand would have to decide its focus and build the relevant skill set. The tools are more than ever before, as always, it’s how they are used. That story hasn’t changed.

until next time, storied brands

It made me think about the mobile as a platform, especially considering the app talk I’ve been doing on the blog for a while now. While appification across platforms is what I’d discussed last week, for the purpose of this post, I shall restrict my thoughts to mobile platforms. Even before I read and wrote about the appification across platforms, I had asked a question on qoura “Has any Indian bank considered a smartphone app?”  (http://qr.ae/GETp) I got 2 answers, and though I was looking for Android, they were still helpful – Robin Samuel pointed me to ICICI (I think Gopi had also mentioned it on Twitter) and Aditya Sengupta mentioned a Nokia Money + YES Bank pilot.

Citibank, whom I bank with, had a few Android apps, I noticed. The Citi Hong Kong app was specially interesting, since in addition to location of ATMs, they also display offers nearby. I’d obviously like an app which will also help me transact, and they have that too, elsewhere. (they are by no means, the pioneers or only ones, as a google search would tell you). The idea here, though is a ‘commodity’ service (banking) increasing user convenience, and making a shift to another bank less appealing. This isn’t an ad vs app debate, but spreading this information would be simple enough (without mass media) during consumer acquisition, as well as later through digital and social platforms. Maybe even tie up with a mobile manufacturer and offer to subsidise the handset for the consumer in return for publicity. The point, platforms are exploding and brands need to think of new ways to associate and partner. These apps could itself evolve into a branding vehicle.

And since that point is made, we can broaden the scope beyond mobile as a platform. Just in case you thought brands might be constrained with that as the only option, how about TVs, kitchens, laundry rooms, cars, tables? Check it out.  (via Avi Joseph)

until next time, Applying minds

I remember writing about this a few weeks back, and asking whether content is merely a titular king and distribution is the real power. Its ironic because much of the power of the web’s second wave is in the ability to create content and distribute it fast. But over a period of time, the platforms we use for sharing have undergone a consolidation. The presence of traditional media outlets and brands on these platforms validate this.

Now if we zoom out further and consider the various other things that are making their presence felt – social gaming, location based services (check out the Foursquare-Pepsi and SCNGR-Coke deals, and the new contexts of advertising they’re creating), group buying; apps on iPhone/ iPad (Murdoch and Branson are making a newspaper/magazine specifically for iPad) and Android. (do add on) This is in addition to the terrains that the incumbents – Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter will discover and develop at least for some more time, and the technological possibilities that will arise. (eg. Augmented Reality, and the return of QR codes) Each of them are building their own distribution systems, and its difficult to bundle all the ‘content’ that appears on them under one umbrella. And that’s only the digital world.

All of this also makes me think of destination sites. I can count mine on one hand. Every other consumption is via Reader/Twitter/Facebook and occasionally email. When the web (and its consumption) is rebuilt around people and their connections, what value does a destination site (belonging to a brand) add? How does the brand deal with fragmentation? The good news for the brands is that there are many more options than ever before. Not every campaign needs to be a TVC, radio spot, newspaper ad, site banner. There are smaller, more scalable and more flexible options. The challenge is to find them, and develop things that enable them to connect with the consumers. We live in interesting times indeed.

until next time, many kings and many thrones

Now in terms of world domination plans, Google is hardly a sitting duck and has been trying to gain a foothold in ‘social’ for a while now, with little success to report so far. But Android has been making huge strides and that should be some consolation. In our twitter discussion, I mentioned that what Facebook had done with this horizontal approach to the mobile platform (OS/hardware independent and just dependent on you being online) is a parallel to what Google did with Android, except this is a way more compelling move.

Towards the end of our chat, I wondered whether, a couple of years later, we’ll be speaking the same way about Facebook as we are about Google now. Its difficult to imagine how, especially when Facebook’s strategy is about adding a social element to every online activity. Like I said, i have no clue on what the frontier might be, but then again, at one point, I did think, perhaps naively that Google had world domination all sorted out.  That was until Facebook started its march.

Sometime back I’d written about whether every era has an organisation which best captures the culture that would enable success in the era. The time between eras is fast shrinking – IBM, Microsoft, Google, Facebook (?) (no, i haven’t forgotten Apple, just ignoring it) and I eagerly await the next breakout star. But I’m also trying to see if there’s something that connects the dominant forces – something that is not unique and not dependent on the time they were the gold standard in.

Two posts I read recently gave me some understanding of why Facebook seems to be advancing faster. “Google’s real problem – GTD?” (Getting Things Done) at GigaOm and “Facebook and Google” at Piaw’s blog. Both pointed to cultural differences and the way the organisations deal with human resources. And so I wonder, is it inevitable that culture changes with scale, and how much can it change before things go downhill? Is there a way to stem that ‘rot’? I read a post about Amazon recently, that shows how Amazon deals with the various companies it acquires. More on ‘culture’ next week.

until next time, search..social..surprise

]]> https://www.manuprasad.com/2010/11/11/place-and-time/feed/ 3