The Naive Marketer and Consumer

The Naive Marketer and Consumer: Top 5 posts of 2009

Here is a list of the most read and commented posts of 2009.  

1. 8 Strategies to improve customer service

2. 10 Suggestions for weak brands

3. Brand Metrics: Are you measuring ITS?

4.  Marketing priority for social media success

5. Traditional media are possibly dying; not traditional marketing 

I wish to thank you for your support and encouragement. Do look forward to your continued interest.

Wish your family and you a very happy and prosperous 2010.

New year resolution for The Naive Marketer and Consumer: To post more consistently.

Brand conversations: How much do what others say matter to you?

Comments Board
Originally uploaded by caitlinread

Everyday I come across a multitude of comments, conversations, and opinions on social media platforms, about brands. Some comments are positive, some negative, most are subjective, a few are objective, sometimes opinionated, motivated and cacophonic. Should I take them seriously?

Yes, I do follow many conversations, but I do not take them all at face value. I simply retain the new information and perspectives in them, but discard the opinions.

My perspectives and dispositions, as a consumer, are a function of my own experiences and those of people whom I know and trust, definitely not those of acquaintances, strangers and others who belong to my friends’ networks and more.

Experiences of people whom I have never met, or not likely to meet ever, are of little or no consequence to me, unless they resonate with my own experiences. If the airline that I frequent is always on time, whenever I travel, what is the need for me to change my opinion basis another person's bad experience?

My self-esteem does not allow me to follow the herd blindly. For me, brand familiarity and positive brand experience are more credible than the comments of strangers and acquaintances on social media platforms. When it comes to the unfamiliar, I seek out friends for good old WOM advice.

How about you? How often have you avoided a brand, refrained from watching a movie, visiting a café, or reading a book basis the reviews and comments of strangers? Not very often, I suppose. I am sure you would still want to watch that film or visit that café to judge for yourself.

Research doesn't seem to agree with me. You might like to read "Online reviews key to purchase decision" http://bit.ly/hmFUA that appeared on Brand Republic's website today (27th Oct'09 ). 

Social media marketing: So, what’s new about it?

I believe that social media marketing is just old wine in a new bottle. Though there are a lot of hype and noise about social media marketing, there is very little about it to suggest that basic marketing has changed dramatically.

 

Consider some of the basics of SMM:

a)   Knowing your audience

b)  Knowing where they are?

c)   Listening

d)  Providing relevant, valuable content

e)   Facilitating and participating

f)    Identifying and managing influencers

g)   Empowering

h)   Building relationships

i)     Transparency and honesty

j)     Measurement

 

Can you imagine any form of marketing succeeding without any of the above? I can’t.  Maybe some are more relevant and important now than before.

 

Only the marketing jargon and tools are changing; not the marketing fundamentals.

Marketing priority for social media success

The primary difference between traditional media and new media is that the former is channels for brand communications and the latter for consumer conversations. Brands are struggling to come to terms with this new reality that consumers now have as much freedom, control and influence as brands do, to communicate and be heard and that the consumers' voice and content are far more credible and potent than a brand's. Brand led push marketing is yielding ground to consumer generated brand content on social media. Some brands have learned this the hard way.

 

In response, brands are busy formulating social media strategy of placing banners, posting videos, creating social media IDs, and blogs, forming groups and communities on social media platforms. The strategy even extends to seeding content, bloggers, forum activists and hiring of specialists to manage on-line reputation.

 

Will this guarantee social media success?

 

Consumers are unlikely to start a brand conversation or create a brand content on their own. They would do so only in response to a brand stimulus. While the conversation and content are not in the control of the brand, the stimulus is. By providing the right stimulus brands can influence and lead social media conversations.

 

We do not live in two mutually exclusive worlds called offline and on-line. The reality of one extends to the reality of the other. This is true for brands also. The reality of tangible offline brand experiences like purchase, consumption, customer care interactions, etc will form the stimuli for brand conversations.

 

A social media strategy, therefore, is just not about communications and media, it is also about creating and delivering experiences across brand touch points (not different from the strategy brands needed before social media). If these brand experiences are consistent, remarkable and unique consumers will voluntarily replay and amplify these experiences.  The volume, sentiment and tone of the conversations will depend on the relevance and nature (positive and negative) of these brand experiences.

 

Building an active social media presence without an equally committed focus on improving tangible brand experiences could be detrimental to the brand. Brands should bear in mind that the best of communications and media strategy for social media will not be enough to cover-up for or overcome shortcomings of real brand experiences. Nor is it possible to manipulate and manage social media like traditional media and PR can be.

 

Marketing’s only priority is to provide the right stimuli, consumers will take care of the rest.

Traditional media are possibly dying; not traditional marketing

Marketing soothsayers are making predictions again. This time it is about the death of "traditional marketing". By erroneously and rather loosely referring to "traditional media" as "traditional marketing", marketers and experts are suggesting that traditional marketing is dying.

 

Ascendancy of social media over traditional media channels like TV, Print, Radio and Magazine is the reason being ascribed to the death of “traditional marketing”. This "new medium" is possibly killing traditional media; it is definitely not killing marketing, traditional or new.

 

Media, traditional and new, are marketing communications channels. Communication is not the whole but only a part.

 

Marketing, traditional or new, is still about identifying and fulfilling (profitably) consumer needs and wants. Traditional marketing activities like positioning, differentiation, segmentation, communication, price and distribution are still as important now as they were before social media.

 

To suggest that traditional marketing is dead merely because of the emergence of a new communication channel is incorrect.

The 30 sec commercial is not dead

I am surprised at the amount of copy being written about the death of the 30 sec commercial. Not surprisingly, the bulk of them are being written by social media professionals.  It is true that social media is growing, but is it killing the TV?

• Deloitte's 3rd edition State of the Media Democracy survey still ranks TV as the most influential medium in 5 major global markets (US, UK, Japan, Germany and Brazil ), ahead of magazine and online.  


• The 3rd annual US Media Myths & Realities survey ranks TV as the No.1 used media

While the new media is gaining traction, it doesn't appear to be gaining at the cost of traditional media.

For the marketer, the choice is not about new media over traditional media, it is about traditional media and new media. Marketers should accept the reality of media multi-tasking and refrain from the debate on the death of the 30 sec commercial.

Who is the customer? The advertiser or the subscriber?

If you, as a subscriber, believe that you are the primary customer of a TV channel or print newspaper, think again. The moolahs of the advertiser is far bigger and much more important to the broadcaster and the publisher than the presumably subsidized rates paid by the subscriber. What does this mean to the subscriber?

Every square centimetre of the newspaper and the TV screen, that the subscriber pays for, is also available for sale to the advertiser at the highest bid. Not a price that a subscriber can afford. Hence advertising in every intrusive form always takes precedence over content.

During the recently concluded India - Srilanka ODI matches, the promo for the " BIG BOSS " program on Colors was displayed on top of the broadcast program, positioned almost in the centre of the TV screen. Ofcourse there were other advertising messages elsewhere on the screen too. More advertising message on the screen than broadcast content. Wouldnt it then be a good idea to charge subscription basis square centimetre of broadcast content shown? Atleast then, the subscriber would know what he or she is paying for.

Its no better in the newspaper medium. News is bumped off the front page, front page news is served in different colors on different days ( brand colors of the advertisers ), the advertiser can even have his name on the masthead for a price. Paid PR? Maybe, though there isnt any conclusive evidence suggesting the same.

Advertising isnt bad as long as it isnt intrusive and one can distinguish advertising and the content. But do the subscribers have any say in it? Not really. No choice either. Cant imagine giving up newspapers and TV or paying more for advertising. Have the comfort though, of knowing I can get my name on the masthead of a newspaper.