You Brand

In 'Consuming Life', the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman describes how people are goods and practice marketing. They mutate into products capable of generating attention as well as demand, in order to obtain what he calls social gratification.

We see this happening every day in new media and in particular in social networks: Followers, friends, retweets, feedbacks etc. are just a few examples of social gratifications. The fact that these gratifications are often instant adds to their value.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the majority of us is and always has been very receptive to social gratification. In my opinion this is another major reason for the popularity of new media. After all, how could the average human being obtain social gratification in old media?

Posted via email from achimmuellers’s posterous

Wikipedia defines 'social' as 'attitudes, orientations or behaviors which take the interests, intentions or needs of other people into account'. Media in turn is ultimately nothing more than a platform used to store, receive and transmit information. Let's look at a refrigerator, which is a cooling appliance used to store foods and drinks (at least for most people). Would we ever think about calling this appliance a social refrigerator? Of course not. Social is keeping in mind what others living in our household like to eat and drink and restocking the fridge accordingly, rather than concentrating on our personal favorites. People are social (or unsocial), but not the appliances, platforms and other tools that they use.

Posted via email from achimmuellers’s posterous

Trust, as defined by Wikipedia, is a relationship of reliance. Trusting others means that we believe they will keep a previous given promise. It is an investment, because we give it before we get something in return. Trust is social capital and as far as I am concerned, it is not the only investment that is becoming riskier every day.

According to a recent survey carried through in Europe and North America by the German institute GfK (Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung) only 18% trusted politicians, 28% trusted advertising managers, 33% trusted bosses and 41% journalists. Devastating results in my opinion. Is behavior – because that is what it is all about – changing fundamentally as a consequence? At present I don’t have the impression that it is, at least not on a large scale. This is unfortunate, because we have the tools, i.e. the social web, to make ourselves heard and to initiate change. The social web aggregates and distributes dissatisfaction and mistrust just like any other information.

What is holding us back? I hear all the time that one individual experience and/or opinion doesn’t make a difference? It is true when everybody believes it, because many individual opinions will remain solitary. Using the multiplier effect of the social web has the potential to change that, but won’t do the job for us. We have to stand up and take an active part. We have to push the process and initiate the change we want to happen. Joining social networks but remaining passive and waiting for a personal miracle doesn’t work and will only increase our personal level of frustration. We need determination and stamina. One negative post on an unsatisfactory product and/or service won’t instantaneously and automatically lead to millions of followers.

Our would-be ‘true’ followers in the social web have to ‘know’ us before they trust us. There is no app for it. Authenticity, transparency, honesty, expertise, reliability and value similarity drive trust in the social web like everywhere else. Word-of-mouth and the fact that they are fellow consumers without a primary commercial interest accelerates the trust-building process. Still trust remains an investment, can’t be bought and must be earned – whether you are online or offline.

So, who do you trust?

Corporate-identity programs are the expression of a corporation’s culture, personality and the products and services it has to offer – the very symbol and signature of the values that should inspire trust with consumers, employees, clients, suppliers and the financial community. Names, logos, colors, fonts, slogans and architecture have been an essential part of major branding strategies since the middle of the last century (Marc Gobé: emotional branding).

Corporate identities were developed to enable brands to make a more or less permanent visual statement about themselves. It was hoped that those statements would in turn define consumer perceptions. Many, especially premium brands, developed a rigidity bearing a resemblance to the Ten Commandments. Their headquarters and showrooms felt like modern interpretations of Cathedrals. The objective in both cases was to communicate in a convincing and at times dazzling manner that the brand and only the brand was in control. Individual interpretations by the believers, i.e. consumers, were not an option. Aspiration was cultivated, automatically including a portion of ‘hard to get’.

The social Web has fundamentally changed the relationship between brands and consumers. Consumers have been empowered by the Web and turned into ‘prosumers’, i.e. they are both producers and consumers. Brands are loosing control, as ‘prosumers’ shape them, influence their value more than ever before and effectively acquire co-ownership.

Brands need more flexiblity, because ‘prosumer’ tastes are changing more often. Not only that, tastes are often different from one ‘prosumer’ to the next. Identities have to be emotionally connected, rather than written in stone. Brands need to incorporate values like social, fresh, immersive, transformative, democratic and trustworthy. Otherwise they will fall into oblivion.

The first consequence for corporate identity is apparent: Brands must include the ‘prosumer’ globally in defining the identity, rather than leaving it to an agency. Crowdsourcing would be a good way to start. What do you think?

The other day I was finishing up an important presentation and realized that in some charts the artwork wasn’t optimal and I needed better photos. I got in touch with a company I had used in the past, realized that my account was empty and transferred some money via PayPal. Usually this takes a couple of minutes, but not this time. After a couple of hours, I sent the company an Email, expecting a quick response – no such luck. The matter is still not sorted out. Once it is, I will post about it.

Since I wasn’t getting anywhere, I started looking and listening around and found Shutterstock. I checked their royalty-free stock photography and saw that they had what I was looking for. I then looked at their subscription models – they have some very interesting ones – and chose one that met my requirements. The money transfer only took a couple of minutes, I downloaded some great stock photography and could at last finalize my presentation.

Then I found out that Shutterstock are also on Twitter and decided to ‘follow’. An auto responder thanked me for following (I usually don’t like auto responders) and gave me a coupon code for a 10% off at my next purchase (that I liked). Having just bought a subscription, I couldn’t use the coupon immediately. So I asked them via Email for how long the coupon was valid. An auto responder (again) thanked me for contacting them and informed me that someone would get in touch within one business day. As I mentioned before, I usually don’t like auto responders, but in this case it made sense to me.

Believe it or not, but within one business day they did get in touch. Stephanie, their account executive, sent me an Email in perfect German (she must have checked my IP-address) and asked for the coupon code number. I sent her the number and in less than one hour, she informed me that the coupon was valid till 2012.

I was and am impressed – this is customer service at its best. Shutterstock have obviously realized that happy customers are their most important asset in today’s Social Web. So if you’re ever looking for great photos, why not check them out.

Questioning the ROI in social media effectively boils down to saying that it doesn’t pay to be a nice guy

A lot has been said and written about the relevance of Social Media, its tools and how to apply them. In my opinion one critical aspect has not been getting the attention it deserves so far and that is the organizational structure of the brands that are thinking about engaging in Social Media.

In many ‘old-economy’ brands we still find very hierarchic ‘command and control’ structures. The Social Media platforms are the exact opposite of ‘command and control’, they are about listening, sharing, supporting and facilitating conversations. They are about co-operation on equal footing.

If brands do decide to engage in Social Media, they have to review their corporate attitude and culture first. They have to engage with their employees the same way they intend to engage with their consumers. Companies have already lost the absolute control over their brands to the consumer thanks to Social Media. Trying to preserve that control internally is a futile mission.

The entire organization has to adapt, because Social Media potentially benefits all divisions. Think about the potential for R&D, production, purchasing, HR, sales, internal communications and of course marketing. Therefore it is only logical to conclude that Social Media shouldn’t be left to the marketing department.

As Gary Hamel put it ‘Organizations loose their relevance, when the internal rate of change is outpaced by the external change’. Markets and consumers are changing rapidly, brands need to catch up quickly.

CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, CTO, CMO, President, Vice President, Senior Vice President, Director, Executive Director, Senior Director, Junior Director, Vice Director, Managing Director, Senior Managing Director, Manager, Executive Manager, Senior Manager, Vice Manager, General Manager, Junior Manager, Marketing Manager, Head of Marketing, Head of Advertising,…. – the list is endless.

Not all of these functions and titles will be found in one single company, but one will most probably find a clearly defined hierarchy shaped like a pyramid, in which the job title expresses the position in the pyramid. What started as an organizational principle has unfortunately turned into an operational principle and in some case even into a governing principle.

The system conditions employees and wakens their hunting instincts. Unfortunately their prey is the next ‘higher’ title and not additional market share for example. Employees start focusing on managing their careers, their immediate environment becomes the frame of reference for their decisions and they procrastinate courageous, innovative decisions, because their positive effect is not immediate. In other words, they are out of touch with the market and the consumer sooner or later and fade out the fact that in reality it is the consumer that feeds them.

Herein lies their major problem with social media. They define listening to consumers, opening up the dialogue, crowdsourcing etc. as an attempt to include consumers in the pyramid. The consumer is perceived as another hunter for the next ‘higher’ title, as a competitor rather than an ally or friend.

Lack of metrics, insufficient ROI etc. are neither here nor there, in reality it is about the preservation of the status-quo. That is however impossible. If companies don’t realize that, they will be out of business sooner or later.

Changing the structure of the organization by developing an alternative to the pyramid and getting rid of the title inflation would be a good starting point. What do you think?

Let me first explain what this post is not: It is not another comment on his incredible performances in Berlin and won’t attempt to analyze his relationship with the brand that supplies his running shoes.

Rather it is a post about decision and resulting action.

When Usain Bolt got his first running shoes – I assume he still had to buy them back then – he knew beforehand that he wanted to become a runner and to do what it takes to become a successful one. In other words, he didn’t get the running shoes to perform a task he previously performed with other shoes (like going to school or to the beach or shopping or whatever). He got them to run as quickly as possible on the track. He also realized that it requires a special, different attitude (training, nutrition etc.) to be really good at that.

Looking at many corporations and the way the treat social media, we find that they are not acting like Usain Bolt: They treat social media just like another marketing tool (i.e. just like another normal shoe) and refuse to realize that it requires a change in attitude.

If they want to be successful in social media, they have to commit to it beforehand and adhere to the rules that apply there. As long as they don’t change, they won’t be successful. Just like Usain Bolt wouldn’t have been successful wearing his running shoes to go to the beach or wearing street shoes to run on the track