For this final blog I’m going to revisit and elaborate on a key area of digital communications, one which I feel is of great importance and needs looking at in greater detail.
So what do I mean by interactivity and consumer control? Well interactivity in this context is a key part of web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005. [1]), the participatory aspects and dynamism displayed by this concept encompasses all that is digital interactivity, it laid out a new path for marketers. When it comes to consumer control, I think Wendy Clarke (2011), Senior VP-Integrated marketing communications and capabilities at Coca Cola, sums it up well from a marketer’s point of view;
“The days of controlling the message are absolutely over. At best you’ll be invited in and you’ll get to co-create and participate with consumers” [2]
The marketer no longer has the power over the consumer, the consumer is much more involved, independent and powerful, with an influence over so many more people than say 10 years ago caused by advances in digital and online technologies.
The notion of co-creation is one which I believe will be vital in the future of an ever evolving digital marketing environment. The online world is littered with companies asking consumers to suggest ideas, communicate feeling and make decisions on behalf of the company; Doritos consumer made ads, Coca Cola’s extensive social media platform and the American Express Members project which gave away millions to 5 charities voted for by American Express customers [3].
[3]
Edelman (2010)argues that:
“Allowing consumers to make brands their own inevitably raises concerns among companies fearful of losing control over brands. The key is striking a balance between retaining control and creating opportunities for consumers to embrace your content” [4]
I think the key point in what Edelman says, is the problem of control. In the digital environment, consumers want to be empowered, not limited in their actions and interactions with a brand. Giving consumers such freedom to do with, say what they want and guide the brand themselves, especially in a brands own domain, can result in confusion over brand identity. I think structure is key in digital marketing. For example Coca Cola’s discussion board, for all its merits, is completely unstructured. This does give complete freedom to consumers, and they are right to let the consumers talk about the brand openly, but often there is a lot of flaring, people purposely being argumentative, which has a negative impact on the discussion board as a whole. The discussion board has no categories and seemingly little regulation, leaving the brand a little too unprotected. For a large brand like Coca-Cola this may not be such a huge problem, but for a smaller brand, it could have huge implications.
It’s clear to see that a complete lack of regulation and control may mean losing control over the direction of your brand. Hardey (2011) [5] comments on how brands are increasingly more visible and Blackshaw (2008) [6] comments on forced brand transparency when stating:
“Transparency isn’t necessarily a choice; thanks to consumer-generated media, the real story behind how brands and companies behave emerges right out of the mouths of consumers who have relevant experience”
This increased time brands spend in the spotlight with forced transparency means even less power. They no longer have the ability to control the message as Wendy Clarke pointed out. Increased transparency in the digital age means an increased need for honest and responsible behaviour, in effect releasing more information and making the company potentially more vulnerable, will, in the long run be beneficial.
If you are able to avoid some of these pitfalls, consumer control can be hugely beneficial. One of the best things is the amount the consumer is able to immerse themselves in the brand, and become part of it. If you are able to make a brand part of someone’s lifestyle, something they are involved in, this can lead to loyalty and advocacy, something which brands strive for and with a well structured online community, can spread fast, in a more controlled way. Ramsey (2010) [8] recognises how the increase in social media use and especially mobile has lead to consumer power. He states:
“They increasingly have the power to make their voice heard; they can make waves and, most importantly, they can play their part in making or breaking a brand through word of mouth”
It can be argued that word of mouth can be more valuable than mass media, in tough economic times this is great news for companies. Research from American Express [7] revealed that 82% of consumers find them through word of mouth, a staggering figure with mass media such as advertising making up only 37% of these figures. Accommodating and helping consumers celebrate their favourite brands is therefore paramount.
[7]
Social media is a great way of facilitating consumer advocacy. It’s accessible instant and inclusive. With the number of people using social networks via a mobile device [7] rising it’s no wonder marketers are ploughing money into mobile sites. Social networking via mobile has meant users can update about their brand experiences in real-time and spread the good, or bad, word of mouth.
[8]
Whether or not consumer power is a good or bad thing depends on the brand, the consumers and the way control is managed. Making sure that your brand is going the way you want is vital. In the short run letting consumers do what they want with it may mean advocates of your brand through mediums like social networking, but long term brand loyalty and profit is where a strong and successful brand will eventually prosper. Consumer control is here to stay, the increase in mobile internet, social networking and internet use mean a digital public sphere easily accessed by consumers, making the most of this access will be the real test for brands.
References
[8] eMarketer, 2008. Mobile Social Network Users Worldwide. Graph. Available from: http://www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?code=emarketer_2000489
