On HBR Blogs, I found an article by Bill Taylor – “Bad Service can be good business” a very interesting read. It showed two different scenarios where the headline is applicable -companies who try to keep the costs down to the barest minimum and charge a premium for anything but the basic (the author quotes Ryanair as an example) and companies whose offerings are so compelling, and whose reach is so vast, that making the investments required to deliver high-touch service would be making a big strategic mistake. He cites new media companies like Facebook, Twitter etc as examples.

Most of the companies I was referring to in the first paragraph are trying to be one of the above. But they play an in-between game, starting at some point and thinking that they’ll figure out a way to get to their destination. But IMO, it can’t happen that way, because once you set expectations, you fall into the ‘trap’ of fulfilling them, without really figuring what your brand stands for. You’re forced to play the reactive game, watching your competitive landscape and fencing with them. As you progress, you’re drawn further away from the active game of pursuing a goal with focus. The trap, hence, is mediocrity, and it is surprising to see it these days because the web and social platforms specifically are a great way to find that slice of audience which will give the brand a chance to deliver that focused product/service. I’m not talking of superficiality here, but the DNA of the brand, and the organisation, the strand around which everything is built. I’m also not saying that all mass brands are mediocre. In the purpose that they have defined for their brand, Ryanair is anything but mediocre. Despite the seeming difference in the two scenarios from earlier, they are bound by a commonality – clarity of thought, which inspires clarity in everything that the brand does.

until next time, clear blue ocean

“let’s make it trend” is the new “let’s make a viral”

— manu prasad (@manuscrypts) May 11, 2012

We live in an era of instant gratification – from a consumer perspective. I’m not sure about the origins here – whether technology (from pagers/mobiles to social networking) came first or the behaviour did – and that prompted technology to evolve rapidly, but delayed rewards seem to have little or no meaning for today’s users.

It’s a difficult behaviour to ignore, though building and evolving a brand’s DNA is a story that requires a much larger timeframe, IMO. And that’s where I remember Godin’s post titled Twitch – “the social internet is emphasizing twitch more than ever before. All that smart phone checking and checking in and name checking and instant rejoindering is amplifying the work of those that are just a little quicker than everyone else.” Godin himself states later that “While twitch may pay off in any ten minute cycle, I’m not sure if it gets you very far in the long run, where the long run might be as short as two weeks.“

While it is possible to argue that individuals, even the personal brands, could scale quite some way on this, I’m not sure whether brands can. And that’s why I, despite being a practitioner of ‘social’, find the rise of the twitch tendency in brands, disturbing. Twitch is probably the brand’s rendition of ‘instant gratification’. What’s worse is that it’s not even the idea of social that’s the twitch here, but individual platforms and devices, (such as hashtags) which seem to have become drivers, sometimes displacing a well thought through strategy.

A brand (even before the social era) consists of many parts. There’s no taking away from the fact that social has probably been the biggest disruption that brand frameworks have seen, but it still is only a part of the larger story. It needs to be woven into the larger brand framework, and then a decision should be taken on its role – lead or otherwise. Until brand managers take cognizance of that, twitch, will unfortunately prevail.

until next time, a twitch in time….

#UnfollowSachin – that was the trending reaction on Twitter to Tendulkar’s Rajya Sabha nomination. (and acceptance) It reminded me of a couple of excellent related posts I had read recently.

First, Seth Godin’s post post. Could also be titled “Why I have comments disabled”. Ok, that was just jest. I’d rather he focus on writing these than fighting trolls too. He uses two simple parameters to disqualify a person from being listened to – lack of standing, and no credibility.

The other post, which in many ways could be seen as quite complementary to Godin’s post is from what’s quickly becoming one of my favourite sites for some daily makes-you-think posts. I’ve not completely watched the video here, but the quote that connects is “Stuart Firestein’s insight on the importance of ignorance in exploration and growth”

In our culture, not to know is to be at fault socially… People pretend to know lots of things they don’t know. Because the worst thing to do is appear to be uninformed about something, to not have an opinion… We should know the limits of our knowledge and understand what we don’t know, and be willing to explore things we don’t know without feeling embarrassed of not knowing about them.

A fallout of not adhering to this is opinions on everything. Self publishing has made this almost a norm. (Is that an opinion right there?) Godin’s framework works well for brand management. But social platforms and brands’ nervousness towards it make the implementation difficult. Theoretically it should work well in organisational decision making as well. But it doesn’t, probably because organisational decision making is rarely objective. It leads me to my earlier post on empowerment. Between the noisy crowd and organisational hierarchy, what’s a brand custodian to do?

until next time, any opinions?

The first one involved a hotel booking. After reading excellent reviews on TripAdvisor and skimming through a well made website, I decided to send them a mail. For 2 days I received no response. I noticed that they were on twitter, and send them an @ message. No response from there too, though they continued to update with promos and news shares. In the meanwhile, I also sent a mail to an alternative id given on the site. After more than a week, I got a response, by which time, I had already booked another place, which responded in less than 24 hours. A deal of about Rs.25000.

We bought a new television from a retail chain after seeing an offer in the newspaper. As the regular story goes, they delayed (from their committed time) by more than 48 hours and (uncharacteristically and quite reluctantly) I made a huge scene at their outlet. In the meanwhile, I also posted on their FB wall (as a response to the image of the ad which had lured me) and sent them an @message on Twitter. The FB response took more than 48 hours and asked me to send a mail to a certain id. The product had been delivered by then, and I told them that. The next day, a tweet response followed, asking me what the problem was. No deal lost, but no love lost either.

In ‘Who Cares?‘, Godin talks about exactly these kind of scenarios, and from there I quote, “Caring, it turns out, is a competitive advantage, and one that takes effort, not money.” The third scenario is an excellent example of this at work.

Much has been written about it already, so you can read the posts, linked to below, to understand what the Cleartrip Hurry Algorithm ‘controversy’ was all about. This isn’t the first time I have regarded Cleartrip’s approach with admiration, and for good reason. This time, not only did they thank @jackerhack who pointed them to a blog post that trashed the new initiative, they also responded to that post and wrote a post of their own clarifying what they were trying to do, not just on the post itself, but also in the comments section where many people raised questions. Cleartrip has set such high benchmarks in this regard that all of the above are now standard fare expected from them, and I probably wouldn’t have written a post. But once again, they went further. A week after this incident, a new post announced a redesigned feature that not only solved the problem the users had with it, but made it even better with more information. The result? An update on the very post that had complained in the first place. #win

Cleartrip was listening, but then so are a lot of other companies. The difference here is caring enough to respond (externally) and creating an organisational will (internally) that works on a user problem and solves it. Not one time, but as a process.

until next time, know response…

I thought about it a bit, not in the context of brands or businesses, but more in terms of brand communication as a field, advertising specifically, and brands’ usage of the social web. Consumption patterns, media platforms available etc had pretty much created templates for creative agencies over a period of time. But the arrival of the web, social platforms and the democratization of media have managed to disrupt the ways of the one-way communication age. This post is a good one to read in that context, and talks about the change digital has made to campaigns, and the ‘role of the consumer’. But desperation, hype and the eagerness to get on board makes everyone concerned ‘jump the shark’. And unfortunately, the way I’ve seen many agencies and clients execute it (purely as a consumer), I’m quite inclined to agree with the author of this hilarious letter. (via PSFK)

(click to enlarge)

The job of the brand manager/creative agency is obviously a more difficult one now, and is made even more so thanks to the approach – of tool strategy. Like this (old but) excellent post states, ‘the technology that underpins social media is changing fast’, but its ephemerality ‘is a feature, not a bug’. It made me wonder whether brand communication/advertising, as a process (the way we see it now) had ‘jumped the shark’, mostly because the thinking process still sees  social platforms in the same light as traditional media and has not changed to be in tune with the former’s dynamics. In other words mistaking social media marketing for social media.

Maybe they have to dig deeper, figure out the value that people are willing to pay for, and then find their ‘purpose idea + social object‘, and consistently. But that would mean a sea change in the way brands and creative agencies operate. Is adaption possible, or is complete disruption inevitable?

I juxtaposed this thought with something that Seth Godin wrote recently, about the ‘red zone‘ – the joyless part of the learning curve. His graph also has a green dot, which represents ‘someone on the other side.. rooting us on, or telling us stories of how great it is on the other side’. Perhaps if brands can find from the existing consumer crowd a few who believe enough to play the ‘green dots’, they can adopt a more holistic approach to social platforms and carry the loyalists without it seeming like ‘jumping the shark’?

until next time, safe jumping.

]]> https://www.manuprasad.com/2010/08/26/jump-with-a-crowd/feed/ 0 https://www.manuprasad.com/2010/03/25/brands-interesting-vs-popular/ https://www.manuprasad.com/2010/03/25/brands-interesting-vs-popular/#comments Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:12:57 +0000 http://www.manuprasad.com/blog/?p=3344 These days, Reader is helping me find a balance that contains both ‘interesting’ and ‘popular’ content. I came upon a very interesting post on Reader via Mahendra Palsule, which was one exactly this topic – Would you rather be Interesting OR Popular by Justin Kownacki.

For the purpose of this post,

Interesting: Arousing or holding attention

Popular: Regarded with favour/approval by general public

To briefly summarise, Justin sees a clear dichotomy in ‘interesting’ and ‘popular’, and states that when something becomes popular, “it will simultaneously cease to be interesting.” The reason, and I would more or less agree to it basis my experiences, is that when it becomes popular, my relationship with the ‘interesting’ entity changes. Suddenly, it is an interest that has moved from a relatively private territory to a more public one. Like Justin notes, it creates dissonance with my self perception of being an interesting person. Meanwhile, money also has a role to play. “interesting sells, but popular sells a lot“, for various reasons.

Meanwhile, like many many others, I subscribe to the uber popular (and interesting) Seth Godin, and on the same day, he wrote a post titled ” Driveby culture and the endless search for wow“. I felt that they were related, especially when Godin writes about the creation and consumption of culture.

As the comments in Justin’s post indicate, there are entities which have successfully been both interesting and popular, but I’d say they are exceptions. I’ve always believed in ‘interesting’ (against ‘popular’) over a larger time frame, and if I go by Godin’s last paragraph in the post, I think he is on that side too. Which is why, I wonder with the massive changes that social platforms bring to creation and consumption of content, brands will have to choose between interesting and popular.

To generalise, the era of mass media made ‘popular’ easy for brands. Like Godin says, money could buy an audience. And that’s exactly what happened when there was scarcity of content. The audience had, and paid, attention. A percentage consumed the brand, sales went up, more money bought more attention. The message  also often pandered to the lowest common denominator. Brands didn’t have to be interesting until they operated in the commodity space, and then it became a gimmick.

When I started using the platforms of what is labeled as social media, I thought there was something that could change this cycle. I still do, in spite of this post (most of it justified, by the way) by Steve Hodson. I think what we’re seeing now is brands seeing social as just another media, and going the ‘popular’ way. The  majority of the audience too, is discovering popularity, and would like to have a share of that themselves. So their consumption and creation would be on that front. In a way, for now, one set of media is being replaced by personal brands.  But in spite of that, the basics of social platforms create opportunities for those brands with ‘interesting’ as their way to be, to have their say. While examples are few and far in between now, I think its just the learning curve taking its time. Maybe the examples are not so easily available precisely they are only interesting to a smaller audience set of users now. Maybe there never will be, because it IS difficult for popular and interesting to go hand in hand. 

I think ‘popular’ is going to be even more difficult to sustain, and not just in terms of communication, but organisational culture, scalability and so on. As content becomes even more abundant, and as technology permeates the lion’s share of our daily interactions, I think the audience will swing towards ‘interesting’, because in  it, I sense, is freedom, and opportunity. And that goes for brands too. However, it remains, as always, a matter of intent, and though I feel that it is indeed a question of ‘interesting’ vs ‘popular’, in the medium term, both kinds of brands will co exist.

until next time, popularity chats in the comments then?

P.S: Do you think Apple is interesting trying to be popular?

A few months back, I’d written a post wondering whether smaller organisations were better placed to use social media effectively. This was based on a post by Chris Brogan. Smaller organisations with a flatter structure, and a culture more open to ideas. In that post, I’d questioned whether ideas becoming products/services and then further on brands, meant that the large audiences developed by brands would dictate the kind of communication used, and if mass media one way messaging became easier then. Also, I’d wondered whether larger organisations could handle the empowerment required to work in a social media environment.

When I read the post by Godin, I wondered if there was a Dunbar number for brands, dictated by the number of people  the brand can connect with- internally as well as externally? There are two things I read recently which added to the thought. One was the idea of the Intention Economy (via Surekha) which “grows around buyers” and is “about markets, not marketing”, and which is builts beyond transactions alone – conversations, reputation, authority, respect all of which are earned by the sellers and buyers. This is a provisional idea, the other is a report from 360i (via Mashable) which states that “that a majority of social media search listings that appear for brand-related queries are created by individuals not affiliated with the brand”, an increasing trend.

Meanwhile, another interesting thought occured to me when I read Jeremiah’s  post on #OperationBlueWater – where he proposes sharing one’s personal goal plan with online and offline social networks to help people achieve it. I wondered if organisations could ever approach this scenario- not so much as an objective, but the openness and the willingness to share and collaborate along the journey.

With or without Dunbar’s number, brands would have to involve either consumers or employees (ideally both) to thrive in a ‘social’ world. If its employees, it means hiring people who are passionate about the stuff they’re working with. Yes, the communication has always been that way, maybe the virtual and social forces will make it happen in reality. As for consumers, in most mass advertising, we have been seeing for sometime now, what Godin describes as “politician’s glassy-eyed gaze or the celebrity’s empty stare”

until next time, social goal setting

I saw a couple of posts which asked an interesting question – whether by creating pages ‘anyway’, Godin was brandjacking. Godin had clarified that if a brand requested him to take a page off, he would do so. And in a later update (to clear the air) he took off the 200 sample pages that had been put up. Bravo! Not that there was anything technically wrong with it – after all, like one of the articles states, Google does something similar- sell ads next to contextually relevant others- generated content (search, ad sense on sites), but the non-paid for brand pages just didn’t sound right.

But it made me wonder again about the location of brand-consumer conversations. Before we get to that, another interesting news item in context, albeit a bit tangentially. Last week, Google launched Sidewiki, “which allows you to contribute helpful information next to any webpage. Google Sidewiki appears as a browser sidebar, where you can read and write entries along the side of the page.” The entries which are shown, are selected not by recency, but an algorithm that has among other things – the contributor’s previous entries and the feedback on the entry. Moreover the entry will also be used on sites with the same content. Users will have to be logged into Google for leaving comments and rating.

As Jason Falls notes in his post about Sidewiki, this adds another layer for brands to keep in touch with, because users may not even have to search for information about the website (or the product/service sold there). If they have the toolbar downloaded, they can see the information as they browse the site. He also rightly remarks (IMO) that we should expect ads (even that of competitors) in the wiki soon. Meanwhile, like any good social product, there is no control that a brand can exert on this content, as it exists on Google’s servers. Jeremiah Owyang  also has a post on the same subject, which offers several great insights and advice. Apparently, the comments a user leaves will also be displayed on his Google profile. The web as one giant social network, he’s right, that’s what Google’s after. There is also the option of sharing it on Facebook/Twitter. It’d be interesting to see a Facebook version of this whenever it happens – a play with Facebook Connect, the website, and perhaps, Facebook fan pages. The Facebook newsfeed means that it can bring the conversation back to Facebook. That’s something Google can’t do..yet.

Now, back to the location. Attempts are being made to aggregate these conversations, and in BIP’s case make it a conversation involving the brand itself. My problem was not with brandjacking, the conversations are happening anyway, and brands are free to create their own ways of aggregation and response, I was more concerned with two other things. One, the creation of a destination point , a ‘middle man’ whose only context connecting its users was the brand itself. Like a subject popping up while chatting over coffee vs a focus group – they both have their uses, but for me, the former is more social media, simply because of the difference in intent. To be fair, I’ve always thought aggregation was inevitable, but Chris Brogan wrote recently about ‘Feeling the Community‘, where he talks about how “we don’t join communities because we  happen to like a product or service. We gather around people who feel what we feel, and we share passion for things that bring us some sense of pleasure or joy, or even healing.” I can completely relate to that, it is the reason I’m not a fan of many things on FB, and was/am not an active member of the groups I’d joined. Now, I talk about all these things (whose group/fan page I am part of) on Twitter. I follow blogs and use these as conversation points there, on Twitter and offline, whenever I feel there is a context, and whenever I can identify with what’s being said on the subject.  What I’m trying to say is that the objects (brands) or even the platforms are not the important context, the people are. Even though the brand has an identity and a personality, different people associate to the same brand differently, and my conversations happen with people who I feel can relate to what I’m saying. Also, the aggregation may not really show the context in which a comment was made. (esp. Twitter). For that, the brand has to be present on Twitter. I’m not sure whether an aggregation point would have the same effect. Woods, trees, and mistakes.

The second issue I have is whether such destination points would tend to become band-aid fixes for a larger problem. Would brands approach the issues with a short term tactical mindset – highlight the issues that they’re able to solve, gloss over the ones they can’t? In essence, see this a point where they can control the conversations? Shouldn’t the greater priority for organisations be changing their internal processes and structures to adapt to social media, than having a dashboard responding to comments? I’m just not very sure it can work in parallel.

So, conversations on the brand website, on its side, and on some other site..actually everywhere. At some point, all data would have to become portable, and depending on context (and perhaps other parameters) I would choose the platform/service/location for interaction. For now, world wild web indeed.

until next time, a website with a sidekick