Modern Marketing - Blog by Collaborate PR & Marketing

Don't They Have Jobs?

This is a question I get asked a lot by people who are trying to understand where people find the time to participate online.  My normal answer is that they do less of other stuff - including TV.  But now I've got a much better answer thanks to Clay Shirky including this gem: "If you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project--every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in--that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought.  I worked this out with Martin Wattenberg at IBM; it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it's the right order of magnitude, about 100 million hours of thought.  And television watching?  Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that's 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television.  Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads. This is a pretty big surplus. People asking, "Where do they find the time?" when they're looking at things like Wikipedia don't understand how tiny that entire project is, as a carve-out of this asset that's finally being dragged into what Tim calls an architecture of participation."

[Joe at MediaBistro has summarised this perfectly - "A wikipedia a weekend spent watching ads."  Brilliant!]

Why Supply Chains Need P2P Plumbing

Supply chain management is not a term to get the blood rushing but it is a vital corporate function that describes taking raw materials from the field to the shelf.  I spent a few years at a large consultancy and saw first hand quite how complex the planning of such supply chains can become.  Armies of smart consultants would spend months mapping out the passage of exotic supplies through global megacorps, before turning the whole process into bits and bytes.  To date, supply chains have been just like company plumbing.  When blockages appeared they were quickly flushed out to keep the pipes to retailers and customers flowing freely.  However, these days, there are some new pipes that are changing the nature of markets - and supply chains.  They are the P2P pipes that customers have set up themselves. And these P2P and networked media environments have created blockages that can't just be flushed out with a corporate enema.  Think of the effect that Shawn Fanning's Napster had on the music industry.  By linking together all the customers in the market he stuck a spanner in the companies' supply chains and they've never recovered.  But all he did was recognise that the marketplace was demanding something different and used the tools at hand to meet it.  What if the music industry had extended their supply chains to include some of these new P2P pipes?  By focusing on rebuilding the marketplace, rather than protecting their industry, they could have trousered the revenues that their customers wanted to give them - rather than suing them for the ones that they didn't.  Instead they despatched a million writs, let Apple hijack the entire marketplace and joined the DRM-free party when it was too late and their reputations were dirt.  But that's all hindsight right?  Well yes, but it's also a warning for companies who still that think their supply chains stop at the corporate walls.  Compare the experience of the music labels to Lego who have extended their own supply chains into the 'grey' market where their customers are busy innovating - and plumbed them right back into the business. The company's vision in this area has transformed its fortunes.  So where do you start?  The first step is to understand which P2P pipes are relevant - and remember they may 'just' be small discussions about problems or innovations.  There are many ways to do this.  Dell's IdeaStorm and MyStarBucksIdea should help both companies stay on top of any new plumbing appearing beyond their firewalls and allow them to act.  Alternatively, you can ignore the whole thing and hope that the next Shawn Fanning isn't doing some P2P plumbing on your supply chains as we speak.

Data Is Behaviour

Marketeers are data hounds and view the world through a kaleidoscope of TGIs, JICREGs, TVRs, GRPs, PIs and other splendid analytical goodness.  However, although very smart and helpful, these systems are still approximations (aka guess-timates) of what might be happening in a complex world.  Now, as people increasingly lead their lives online, we have information about what is actually happening in a complex world.  So, for example, instead of mocking-up profiles of typical customers to help guide strategy - we can let the data describe the reality.  And we can see how that reality changes.  All of which, on the face of it, sounds like a good thing.  However, in fact, the move from reference to reality is tricky.  For starters, there's A LOT of this reality stuff and it's VERY messy.  But as with all technology, that bit will eventually be solved by some smart folk, a few machines and a bit of Gordon Moore's magic.  No, the tricky part is moving away from the reassuring, grand planning environment into one where you know who the customer is - because you can smell him.  It's The Cathedral And The Bazaar all over.  In the networked world data isn't an extrapolation or a sample - it's behaviour.  There's no need to second guess the market when you can just wander around it.  What does this mean in practice?  Well one thing is for sure.  When setting up a community, blog or social net, be aware that your guests won't be the people you invited.  But they will be the people you need to know.  Make them welcome.

P2P vs The Rational Consumer

Rory left an intriguing comment in the post below about brands in the Gift Economy.  "The thing about the gift economy, as you term it, (and free culture in general) is that in the world of the rational consumer, it doesn't work. And unfortunately (or fortunately if you create competitive advantage for a living) most brand owners (certainly in the music industry) are still doggedly following their yellow brick road to the fictional land of the rational consumer.  The gift economy, free culture, experiential marketing and customer engagement are all P2P concepts. These concepts simply don't fit most current brands. Most big brands and legacy agencies are desperately scrabbling around to save themselves with new creative concepts and marcoms strategies. What is needed is a more fundamental look at brand architecture."  My sense is that far from being 'concepts' P2P aka 'give a little take a little' is increasingly how people go about their daily business - at least online eg recommendation services.  So it looks like we're not in Kansas anymore.  The question is where does the review of brand architecture, that Rory refers to, actually start?  Any thoughts?

People Care About Markets, Not Industries

No one cares about the music industry.  But they really care about music, musicians - and the music marketplace.  They care about songs, singers, bands, DJs, gigs, clubs, forums, recommendations, discussion boards, MySpace, specialist dealers and obscure collectors.  And now the web lets people organise these things into the marketplace they've always wanted.  Which looks something like - free music supported by live gigs, merchandise and good quality recordings.  The music business (RIP) lost sight of the industry vs marketplace distinction along time ago.  After years of trying to protect their cathedrals, they ended up outsourcing the headache to Steve Jobs.  Who made a mint by ignoring the industrialists and rebuilding a lighter-whiter-brighter marketplace.  Now TV is trying to avoid the same fate of being stuck behind stone walls, throwing boiling oil at its customers.  TV's smart kids know no one gives a hoot about their industry.  But they do care about great entertainment, amazing actors, sensitive scriptwriting, powerful plots, celebrity glitz and inspiring drama.  In fact, they care so much that given the opportunity they want to get involved.  Just look at the success of the L-Word fanisode and LG15 (now EQAL), creators of the hits Lonely Girl and Kate Modern.  Both are examples of smart operators turning their backs on the industry, looking out into the marketplace (aka the bazaar) and reacting to what they observe.  But it's not all small studios hustling webisode craziness.  The Big Daddy of social networks - MySpace - has its own TV channel and just listen to its VP, Jason Kirk describe their approach: "We’re trying to decide what makes sense for our community. The video is often the catalyst, but it’s about how does it play into the community."  Or Amanda Goodfried, LG15 producer: 'The show is more than just a video series, it’s a universe, a full experience where viewers can become directly involved in the character’s lives.'  No industrial sentiment there.

Why Ads Don't Work In A Gift Economy

Online gift economies can easily sound like a load of kool-aid fulled, hippy nonsense.  But in fact, it's how we all operate day-to-day in the real world.  We give and expect to get back - but only at an unspecified future date.  Think regular drinking pals who don't count the rounds too closely because they know it all evens out in the long term.  By buying the beers when you've just been paid you are saving up a few gratis ales for when money is tight.  And we all know what happens to people who don't get their round in.  Eventually, they get thirsty.  The difference is that gift economies used to be restricted to tight social units such as the family, close friends or neighbours.  Now the gift dynamic is writ large across the world.  Networked media has created millions of small groups who are brought together by common interest but remain geographic strangers.  The surprise, however, is that our natural propensity to give-and-take translates into these online cliques and makes them tick.  If you link to the article I have been working on today, I'll be inclined to point at your post tomorrow.  If you add my photos to your montage and give me a name check, I'll recommend your artwork to my friends.  If you add my video to your delicious feed, I'll introduce you to someone helpful.  If you add a little juice to my P2P project, I'll make sure you are invited to that cool new event.  If you praise me, I'll defend you when your name is being dragged through the mud.  Through these small favours, back-pats, gestures, nods and winks, the strands of social networks are drawn together.  Groups unite and alliances form.  There's nothing new here.  It's as old as the hills in fact.  But when magnified through the distributed techno-bobbins that we have in our homes and on our persons, those small gestures and contributions grow into market forces that disrupt whole industries, causing big headaches for MegaCorps.  Think Skype's attack on the telecomms biz, McCool competing with enterprise tech, Fanning's assault on music or BitTorrent's steady disruption of the studios. All powerful market forces that kick-off with a small gift.  So how do brands work in such environments, where people want a favour not a fiver, a thumbs-up not a backhander?  Well, it's fair to say that advertising in its current form won't cut it.  In gift economies advertising is the equivalent of having dinner at your friend's house and leaving £50 on the way out, as the wonderfully hirsuite Yochai Benkler notes in this TED talk. It feels a bit grubby.  Gift economies work because someone is given a voice, made to look smart, introduced to a new friend, when their style is praised, their art is pimped, a door is opened or some light is thrown on a problem.  But just like the real world you have to give before you get and the payback is in the long-term.  Which makes it a difficult corporate investment to justify.  Especially while the short-term option of buying some 'loyalty' through media remains.  However, as the gift economy grows and challenges new markets, brands that can't operate in this forum might find themselves getting thirsty as those beers start to dry up.  Whose round is it again?

Opportunity-To-Speak?

In 2004, I worked for a German car manufacturer planning a new launch campaign with a very groovy team of folk from a digital agency, global PR shop, a traditional ad agency and a big experiential outfit.  The client wanted us to come up with a concept for a non-TV led launch which we duly did.  It was great.  Even the grand fromage of said motor firm was excited about doing something different.   However, having spent half a lifetime selling the idea in and securing required funds, the tone of the project changed when the media guys from the ad agency showed up.  The reason was simple.  Unlike previous campaigns most of the money was not going above-the-line.  What followed could only be described as a metrics-off or maybe a data-duel.  My team arrived with models showing how we would forecast the performance of our integrated - yet experimental - campaign, and the traditional media guys showed up  with the usual armoury - TGIs, TVRs, rate cards, strikeweights, frequency and reach estimates etc.  And battle commenced.  The media guys wanted us to choose a single metric to measure all aspects of the campaign and suggested Opportunity-To-See (OTS) - the widely used way of estimating likely message views.  However, for our programme (which was a celebrity-driven, social web extravaganza + euro-roadshow) OTS made no sense.  The discussions then broke down into a slanging match where I suggested that OTS was a bit tired in a world where a trip to the shop for milk involves a media onslaught.  And the media guys rolled their eyes a lot whenever we mentioned words like engagement - or (god forbid) fun.  Needless to say, 50 years of media metrics did its job and battered our innovative proposal until the client got nervy and 'recalibrated' the spend.  I'm sure many of you reading this will have had very similar experiences.  For me, it was a good lesson in the intriguing, twisted nature of today's media markets which are, generally, interested in measuring media space, not head space.  Yes, it's tricky.  However, in a world where loudhailers are blocked out and everyone has a soap box, all campaigns should at least try and measure how effective they are in getting people to talk.  My suggestion is to introduce the metric Opportunity-To-Speak - how frequently the consumer is asked to participate. (Darn, wish I'd thought of that in Frankfurt! ;-))  What's your modern metric suggestion?

Why Anti-Spam Works

In networked media you have to try hard.  But if you create good ideas and content over a sustained period, interested parties will find you.  It's the opposite of spam-like marketing techniques where you put most of your efforts into creating very wide distribution.  All in the hope of finding the relevant few.  On the social web, the aim is for the relevant few to find you.  They do this using the aggregators and personal social networks that people now rely on to work out what's relevant.  It's anti-spam in fact.  Also, networked media likes people and organisations that are available.  The content is the beginning of the process that creates a healthy, vibrant network from which commercial benefits flow.  So being available and tuned into the signals coming back to you is vital.  This is very different from spam-like marketing where the only response that registers is the one that fits into the narrowly defined call-to-action - marketing code for the sales process.  And as consumers, aka people, build ever higher walls to shield themselves from the commercial shock-and-awe tactics of last century, the anti-spam mindset is also more efficient.  Time and effort can go into creating attractive community, rather than powerful armoury.  Anti-spam is actually very sensible in a world where most activity starts with a search.  Google is one big spam-busting machine, but it rewards thoughtful content by matching it with the gazillion flagged intentions that constantly refresh its logical brain.  And just so we are clear, we are talking about all marketing content here.  A poorly conceived ad can feel just as spammy as that email offering peculiar personal delights.  Yes, these days, creating a few beacons for interested parties to find you is much better than just shouting at passers by.  (And by the way, here's the greatest piece of anti-spam ever - check the visitor stats! ;-))

TV Industry - RIP?

As the TV production industry slowly decouples from its traditional broadcasting infrastructure, we are starting to get a peak at the complexities ahead.  In short, it's a re-run of the music industry (RIP) - and some.  The battle between the producers of content and their new bedfellows, the ISPs, is one aspect of this huge jigsaw.  To get a feel for the degree of complexity just check out Ashley Highfield 'summary' of the issues on the BBC's Internet Blog.  Here's a snippet from his proposed Broadband Charter: "The best technical solution is usually Moore's Law, which has delivered massive reductions year on year in the wholesale cost of bandwidth, and also reduced the bandwidth needed to consume a good quality full-screen TV picture (ever improving video codecs and compression algorithms have helped enormously). But BT Wholesale’s prices are regulated by Ofcom, and not subject to Moore’s law."  OK then!  Meanwhile over at Wired, Frank Rose's advice to the studios is to do whatever the music industry (RIP) didn't do: "Entertainment executives tend to find what they expect to find. If they fear theft, they'll see piracy; if they're looking for opportunity, they'll discover ways to profit. The music labels ignored the opportunity for so long that it has all but evaporated. The television and film industries still have a shot, but they need to move fast. Instead of hiring lawyers to lobby Congress and sue their customers, they need to set their legal minds to untangling messy rights issues and rethinking those profitable yet restrictive pay-TV deals."  Mmmm, I worked on taking a mega film character online in 2000 and found that no matter how insightful our plans or brilliant our concepts the bottom line was that rights issues ruled.  What to do?  Maybe back to the music industry 'model' -  aka Let Steve Jobs Turn Our Product Into An Ad For Apple Kit?