And there’s the first example, which is easily becoming THE example now, for bad PR. BP – if the spill wasn’t bad enough, there was the spillage – the fake PR account – advice on what/why BP should or should not do with it, the tweet billboards, an old (fake) ad, the ironic sign, the ghastly, ghastly images, the user created logos, a coffee parody, and the post from the man who created BPGlobalPR. BP’s losses as a brand (intangible?) is much more than the real $costs that have been speculated. Meanwhile, it has finally reached out to the @BPGlobalPR account. (While on the topic, do check out Rob Cottingham’s excellent take on the subject)

The only commonality I’m looking at is the user generated content (or discontent). I don’t think this is an area which can be gamed easily. Sure, you can try to manipulate events and people, and search engines, try some good old PR, but there are no guarantees that it won’t boomerang. And I think it holds true across the spectrum – the two cases are polar opposites in terms of magnitude of the event, what the crowd did to it, and what the brand tried to do.

Deviating a bit. I read “Arundhati Roy on ‘War of People‘”, where she took the scope of the Naxal issue into corporate boardrooms, and was immediately reminded of Umair Haque’s latest post titled “Ethical Capital is Capitalism’s new cornerstone“. He defines Ethical capital as “the stock of techniques, tools, and practices not just for creating value, but for defining and refining values, that an economy possesses”, and CSR, social investment, social entrepreneurship etc as the baby steps towards building it. But the corporate world still doesn’t understand the rewiring, as he himself notes. And here’s where we loop back, I don’t think this building of ethical capital can be gamed either.

I can spot an increasing number of efforts – Pepsi’s Refresh Project, their efforts for production sustainability, Nokia’s eco profile for new products, their bicycle charger kit, to name a few. While the cynic in me sometimes disses official CSR, I realise its perhaps a level that has to be crossed before we reach out for bigger things. I also see efforts from the consumer side  –  CarrotMob (via Surekha)

I see all of this as a trend where users are linking the brands they use, and their consumption, to the larger context of their lives and the even larger context of the world they inhabit, and the culture they consume and create. The ‘badges’ have changed, they’d like to associate themselves with brands that accommodate or at least work towards these badges.  In the foreseeable future, I think that brands which understand this will not only align more people on their side, but also have inherent features and processes which would allow them to be transparent, reduce these costly mistakes, and admit to their mistakes without the PR approaches that are drawing flak now.

until next time, PR pressure?

While Google’s dominance in search is complete, social search is another matter altogether, and if we go by Hitwise’s report on web user activity in Australia, social search is poised to overtake search soon. Though this is an Australia specific report and though it does leave room for arguments (YouTube is classified as social search though it is usually categorised as video search) it is definitely a trend. And while this page would give you enough statistics to show that ‘social’ is not really limited to Facebook or even Twitter, and includes everything from blogs to LinkedIn, if I had to choose one company which would be the player to beat in social search, it would be Facebook.

But first, Google. Google is now easily the print industry’s bogeyman, and despite robots.txt wars and pay-walls, Google  continues to explore the territory. From adding FastFlip on the Google News homepage to the ‘starred’ feature which allows you to track stories of your choice on a separate page, thereby lending the algorithm a personal touch, Google is upping the ante on a regular basis. Meanwhile, understanding that its lagging in the ‘social’ space, despite services like Orkut, Google is working on an integrated social strategy using everything from a user’s current network of contacts in Google services to a social search that includes contacts from other networks and from OpenSocial and Friend Connect to supporting OpenID and OAuth, and even having a tweet ranking algorithm now. This could ensure that Google becomes an important part of our social profile soon, though personally I’d think a lot before working on my Google Profile!!

Meanwhile, with over 350 million users, half of whom visit the site daily, Facebook is well placed to throw a spanner in Google’s works. Facebook’s biggest strength is the trust factor it automatically brings to search results because it draws these from a social graph – users and their inter-connections, and its a gigantic data mine. From the link shared earlier, over 2.5 billion photos and 3.5 billion pieces of content (links, posts etc) are shared every month on Facebook. There are 700000 active local businesses are listed. Meanwhile, it is trying to provide tangible business value too, from a conversion tracker to encouraging users to set up their accounts for news reading, it is now trying to dislodge Google from its areas of strength. Google is spread all over the web, and Facebook is a walled garden. But then, it spreads itself with Facebook Connect, which is implemented in 80000 sites engaging 60 million users every month.

January 28th was World Data Privacy day. Google renewed its privacy vows, and everyone must’ve had a good laugh. This kinda explains why. And while Facebook makes claims that its recent updates to Privacy Settings had 35% users thinking about privacy and configuring their settings, revelations like these don’t help.

RWW had a good post on Data Privacy Day on Facebook’s volteface with regards to privacy, which also made me think about the evolution of the web and the two sides of the coin – the convenience of recommendations based on my likes gleaned from my interactions on a network, and the privacy of that data.  The last part of Samir Balwani’s excellent post on Social Media ROI begins to address exactly this area.

A few other players in the game emerge when we look at a larger landscape of web access. The iPhone vs Android vs (you could also say) Symbian/Maemo battle rages, even as 65 million users access Facebook on mobile. Google now has its own operating system and the gPad (concept) pictures are already floating on the net (within a few days of the iPad launch). Nokia, Apple and even old Microsoft, they are all media in themselves too. The common factor is data about us.

The reason why all this is interesting is because unlike the earlier forms of media we have known, neither Google nor Facebook are content creators. They are aggregators of content – from  known publishers from old and new media, and more importantly, from us, the users. Our consumption patterns and interactions will be the data from which marketing insights will be gained. As these networks increasingly become media, the search for revenue models and the trends of using these as marketing/advertising platforms will also increase. This needs to be kept in mind as we spread ourselves across the networks.

until next time, virtual realty

Bonus Read: Why Facebook is wrong: Privacy is still important

Disclosure: I work with The Times Group

There was some amount of Twitter buzz a couple of days ago on the article carried in the (city edition) Times about Arindam C’s new book selling a lakh of copies in 10 days. This also appeared in a post at “Don’t trust the Indian media”, in the context of ‘paid-for news’. The post dealt with the TV medium primarily, but also noted that in the coming years, consumption will be not be medium specific.

Like I’ve written before in the context of content marketing, the key factor, irrespective of platform, amidst the changing nature of advertisers, publishers and consumers and the relationships between  them is trust.  In a sense regular advertising is also paid-for news, but its form is such that one immediately knows its paid for. With the influx of advertorials and paid-for news, the lines began to blur fast, with  credibility beginning to suffer.

In an increasingly user generated environment (almost all of social media is just that) advertisers (brands) now have a way to source positive content without paying obscene amounts for it. They can find relevant spokespersons who have their niche, but contextually relevant fan following. Of course, on the flip side, finding them is still a task. But they already have a name for it – ‘social influencer relationship management’ The other point is that even the nature of sharing – blogs/microblogs/statuses are in a constant state of flux. Meanwhile, like Shefaly pointed out in the comments, it is still relatively easy to get away with non-disclosure on the web.

But despite all that, and the fact that I believe in the loop of objective-> idea/strategy-> medium, I’d say that the web is more advanced than other media in terms of content marketing, primarily because user generated content, and discontent, has been an integral part of its evolution. Users, potential users, all talk to each other, and trust evolves. A crowd is involved, conversations happen. Also, with more and more lives being lived with an audience in mind, and people becoming conscious of how they’re perceived online, hopefully it will ‘become too costly to be evil’ (non disclosure)

And that’s why its erm, refreshing, when I see brands making a strategic commitment to the digital space. Pepsi recently junked Super Bowl for the first time in 23 years and has included $20 million in grants for the Pepsi Refresh Project. Some say, its a risk, but to me its about as risky as putting a 30 sec ad that might get trashed. Moreover, its not an isolated thing. I recently read about Pepsi using Foursquare to fund a youth mentoring program called Camp Interactive, which helps youth explore technology and environment. Consistent efforts like this will get them unpaid editorial space and buzz at least in the online space.

Closer home, Nokia is using a digital dominated strategy for N97, in its first 4 months of launch. I liked it because of the reasons stated – “Digital media blends very well with the product features of N97 Mini. Also, the audience to be targeted is all available online.” That sounds like its reasoned out well, though I’d also like to see a similar approach to execution too. There are a couple of things I am hoping for in addition to the obligatory display advertising – that Nokia not make this a short term venture, because though this product might become non priority for them in a few months, the poor sod who bought it will still want to connect with them online. The second hope is that they experiment with content marketing, and go a little beyond the ‘over-the-counter’ blogger outreach stuff.

In the case of Pepsi, its a concept, an idea. In the case of Nokia, they have a product based strategy. In both cases, there is a potential for natural buzz, which to me is the way it should be. Buzz should be a result of a good product/strategy, too many time it IS the strategy, and that is what has caused things like ‘paid-for content’. The bigger hope in all this, of course,  is that an increasing commitment to the evolving digital space will force advertisers and brands to be on the ball, and in that, a better mindset will evolve, one that believes in a two way communication approach, as opposed to blind advertising and paid-for content.

Its interesting that on one hand, networks, brands and individuals are trying to carve out a niche based on trust, using digital media for reach, and on the other hand, we have the news media, the original custodians of trust,  despite guilt , oops,  guild feelings, using their massive reach to push one way communication.

until next time, news making

PS: See you in a fortnight

With respect to India, the survey claims that 86% of Indians would rather buy from companies that are trying to reduce their contribution to global warming. Further, 50% of Indian respondents would be more likely to buy environmentally-friendly goods in the next 12 months, if they were at the same price and standard as their usual brands. 43% would be willing to pay a little extra for those goods.

Somebody has been listening, or more likely, had been listening for quite a while, for earlier this month, I read about Nokia India’s efforts though its ‘Take Back’ campaign, which aims to educate consumers about the recycling and re-use of old handsets and accessories. In addition to this contribution, Nokia will also plant a tree for every handset dropped at the recycling bins. I was extremely impressed by Nokia’s official notes on their efforts. As a market leader, Nokia has done a great job.

Meanwhile, another key player has also been doing its bit for a better planet. I remember writing about Motorola last year – the Motopower project, that has 55 solar powered kiosks in Uganda offering free mobile charging to consumers. Motorola also has its share of recycling efforts, and I found its latest effort – the W233 Renew, very refreshing. This handset is the world’s first mobile phone made with plastics comprised of recycled water bottles., and is also the world’s first Carbonfree cell phone on the market.  The site also says that through an alliance with Carbonfund.org, Motorola offsets the energy used to manufacture, distribute and operate of the phone. (through investments in renewable energy sources and reforestation, courtesy Wild Blue Skies) The unfortunate bit, hopefully for now, is that this is not an India phenomenon now. Judging by the Havas Media report, Motorola is missing out on a huge opportunity in India.

It is indeed good to see genuine efforts from major global players to make the world a better place, sustainable efforts  because they also make buiness sense, and are not spur-of-the-moment CSR initiatives.There can never be enough efforts, and in an increasingly connected world, which thrives on transparency, there’s nothing like a genuine effort to build on brand equity.

until next time, (as a Springfield tee says) Respect Green Rules

Of course, we have a different scene here in India, from what I read in WATBlog’s report on the IAMAI Digital Marketing summit, with marketers hesitating to go beyond the performance based model . I personally believe both the performance based model as well as a more ‘social’ model have their uses. To put it simply, the former is tactical, and the latter is strategic. But, I agree that it is difficult to sell the latter.

Like I mentioned once, the measurability of the net as a medium is a double edged sword. I mean, which marketer can measure how many people saw a particular billboard, a particular ad (print or television) or heard a radio spot. The first is at best a judgment, and the rest, an approximation based on reach figures. There is zilch accountability in all cases, but the net has to be measured, even if the spend is 1% of the other media. Perhaps the fundamental love for quick, short term results that envelops the rest of marketing is prevalent here too. But yes, in the end, the intent/objective of the activity should decide the strategy in any medium.

The best part about social media is that it allows the marketer the flexibility to do both kinds of activities. On one hand, you could be having twitter conversations, interacting on Facebook groups/profiles, and building communities ( a good how to note here)  keeping the brand strategy in view, and on the other hand, you could be running interesting promos on say, YouTube. Here is another study by iPerceptions that shows customer online ad preferences. (via Wild Blue Skies) There are independent tools being developed that measure the efficacy of  video campaigns – Visible Measures is an example, so its about time more companies got viral. I saw a few good digital promos that I’d like to share. (all US based)

Chevrolet offered up to 10 free rides a day to college students on six campuses in a Chevy Aveo5 hatchback and filming the experience. They are then loaded on a special site, from where it can be shared on other platforms. Finalists are chosen from each college and then one grand winner will get a car. Read all about it here.  

For their product ‘Dragon’, HP did a promo called 31 days of the Dragon. As part of this, they contacted 31influential tech bloggers to give away 31 laptops in 31 days. Each blogger ran a contest according to his rules, but also publicised others running the contest. With 3,80,000 links and 25000 entries, I would count it a success. (via Marketing Pilgrim)

And these days the biggest marketer online is after all Obama. He’s got himself an iPhone app, which enables you to call your friends prioritized by their location in battleground states. That nothing works better than peer recommendation is a smart understanding. Read about it here.

Nokia has a new and interesting promo running at somebody else’s phone. I wonder if its a new phone or something else altogether. The Facebook profiles of the characters don’t offer me any clue. Anyway, we’ll know in about 4 days.

I read a post here, about an agency Modernista, that does not have a website. Big deal, you would say, most agencies here don’t have one, but the twist here is that its website is a ‘Wikipedia’ page that uses the resources of the web (Flickr, YouTube etc) to showcase its work. Its a great and radical thought, which definitely breaks the clutter.

Lastly, take a look at this article, which talks about branded iGoogle themes. And here’s a superb compilation of companies that have used social media, but while in social media, beware of the cliches in digital marketing, especially social media. After all, Gartner has projected that over 75 percent of Fortune 1000 companies with Web sites will have undertaken some kind of online social-networking initiative for marketing or customer relations purposes. But, he added in an interview with CNET News, 50 percent of those campaigns will be classified as failures. (via a must read article) A similar small but useful note on Twitter usage can be found here. 

As Chris Brogan has rightly written, social media is like phones, its a new (possibly better) tool, but the most important part is how it is used to reach consumers in a better way.

The sad part is that there is still a tendency to choose easier ways of getting this job done, than getting a clear understanding of the medium and using it to the brand’s advantage. Here’s an article that talks about ways of ‘handling’ online reputation. The CEO of one such company that does this job for brands talked about cribbing sites like Mouthshut!! I wonder when these ‘practitioners’ would understand a few things – one, usually customers write negative things because they feel strongly; two, you cannot control the conversations on the web; and lastly, if companies made good products and provided good service, the same customers would write good things!! 

until next time, be the change you want to see?

Since I have been lax on the topic and enough has been debated on it, I did some epaper reading and have focused on a few things I thought would make an interesting read. For those who missed the entire top 100 list, here it is

I think Nokia’s climb to the top has been mainly because unlike the poor toothpaste, its not a single product or even single service/utility (oh come on, it easily transcends  a pure play communication device, its also a camera, a music player and so on). This not only heps it give different USPs to different kinds of people, but also helps them in communication (to appeal to different kinds of audiences across SEC categories).

Speaking of SECs, here are the results based on income, SEC and respondent type, and by metros

Other than trivia like the fact that Fevicol doesnt have a mazboot jod with SEC A and the ones mentioned in the image itself, the lists in the SEC split seem to be just a reworking of the top 100 order. As far as the income split goes, quite understandingly the income class below Rs.2500 are in a lot of pain. What else explains Crocin’s jump from #81 in the top 100 list to #10 (okay, bad one ) You know, these lists would make one think that this is one of the most hygienic and healthy countries in the world, look at the number of personal care and cleaning products and health+ food brands out there. Sigh, now if only trust would lead to usage In the ‘respondent type’ list, its amusing to see ‘Fair and Lovely’ at #17 in the young adult male list.

Its interesting to see education occupying two spots in the Delhi list, the top three brands in Kolkata having something to do with the skin, Mumbai having a cleanliness fetish, and Chennai not having it (must be the water problems). Yes, I am glossing over, but a detailed look will take time

Meanwhile, Brand Equity has also given the methodology in selecting brands. A couple of thoughts on this. Considering that we’re hunting for the most trusted brands, shouldn’t we also have a media category (all media, or is it a problem because of possible bias allegations?) When do things like retail chains (CCD, Big Bazaar, FoodWorld), familiar brands like say, Levis and gang, India Post, Indian Railways, IRCTC etc make an entry? And i know this won’t happen any time now, but will computer (hardware manufacturers as well as things like Windows/Linux and entities like rediff) make it into the top 100 list in at least 5 years?

Meanwhile, I really don’t see anyone being able to challenge Nokia, unless simultaneously, a telecom brand (service) really becomes a pan india player (is already there) with excellent service and other mobile manufacturers give Nokia some really tough competition. The other possibility is when public utilities like power, water supply etc start having private players (not in an infrastructure capacity, but as a branded utility). Whatcha think?

until next time, in brands we trust

All images are courtesy Brand Equity, the Economic Times dated 11th June 08

Update: Guess who makes it to the top in the US.

I’ve always wondered about endorsements and the value they add to the brand. I think there are some categories where rival brands have been used as some sort of proxy battleground for rival stars. Look at the cola battles – SRK and the B family are in the Pepsi camp, while Coke has Hrithik and Aamir. Wonder where Ash is though. She’s been on both sides. There’s also car manufacturers – Aamir for Toyota, SRK for Santro, and the Big and small B for Maruti Versa. The other interesting arena is handset manufacturers. I don’t know if you’ve noticed,  but there’s a neat battle brewing there now that Aamir has been roped in by Samsung, because with SRK pitching for Nokia, and Hrithik dancing to Sony Ericsson tunes, we’re over company phase and into crowd phase.

Like I said, I’ve always wondered about endorsements. I can understand the endorsements for sports brands by sports people and even John Abraham (reebok did a decent job in Goal too).  I can understand clothing brands and accessories being endorsed by filmstars. I can even understand the cola wars because everything is about an edge over competition. Besides its a commodity. Similar for Abhi B for Idea and SRK for Airtel. Hey, Hutch ne to kutte ko use kiya, phir bhi bik raha tha. What does that say about those two? I’m on the borderline for Dhoni and Saif for Kurkure and Lays respectively. I thought ‘Whats the prograaam’ did the trick for me and Juhi did a decent job with ‘Kya family hain’.

But what i really can’t understand is how Hrithik, Saif or SRK can do the trick for Acer, Lenovo and HP respectively. Isn’t that a product which is bought after much research and analysis on features? Will it sell just because it features a movie star? Don’t logic and rationale play a lot of role in the purchase decision? Is that a quality that the filmstars are famous for? Most importantly, these are also increasingly customised purchases, would you really consider a laptop just because Saif features in it (maybe because it recognizes faces, yes, but that could’ve been anybody’s face in the ad).  And honestly, i dont believe in that ‘getting the attention of the consumer’ jazz. If the product is good, its reviews will say so, and will also say so if its not. Similarly for mobile handsets and even cars, though Toyota did a reasonably good job by matching Aamir’s traits with the car. Whatcha think?

until next time, mera wala paint or saif’s wall color?

Update: Todays’s (28/03) Times Business carries an article vindicating the post, at least more or less :)… the timing is not by design

While these were two completely related products (mobile handset and service provider), what I’d like to see is an ad featuring products whose only relation to each other is the target audience they’re aiming at, and the way the brands fit into their lives, either by say, time (Gillette + Kelloggs) or geography (Woodland + Vodafone). Strange, but fun.

Meanwhile, i read on agencyfaqs that Simply Marry has tried a viral approach to marketing. I had a look at the site, and while the animation and music is pretty decent, i felt the entire concept is too frivolous to become a viral. In fact, I’d like to pitch another thing to them. Why couldn’t they just buy over a property like this, and then start making episodes of these with more and different characters. Meanwhile, also make it multi platform and offer downloads of mobisodes, if the idea is also for 58888 to make money. They can even do an entire reality series based on this and air it on Zoom and Times Now. Even if not a TV reality show, this can be an MMS based mobile reality show. Connect to a Reliance/Vodafone/Airtel or even that insufferable Tata Indicom (free couple available with brand)  and they’d be happy to partner, i guess. Promotion shouldn’t be a problem with the group’s immense newsprint strength. Considering this is a ‘metromonial’ site, I’m sure all these media are toppers in their respective genres. Yes, all except ‘Isko Dekho’, though statistics and niches can be found, i bet.

until next time, howzzat for connections?