Interactivity - "you make it" - Blog Week 2

As mentioned in last week’s blog web 2.0, a term popularised by Tim O’Reilly, has given consumers power.  The power derives from their ability to generate their own content, express their own opinions and not only access information (web 1.0) but discuss this information. Hierarchical marketing systems are dissolving, marketers no longer have the same definitive power to tell consumers how to behave and what to purchase in the non-elitist world of the web. Deighton and Kornfeld recognise this loss of power, stating:

“Marketing may be less a matter of domination and control, and more a matter of fitting in” [1]

The idea of marketers fitting in relates back to last week’s blog, about how marketers have to listen to consumers through social media, the case of @BTCare being a prime example of a company who does this extremely well. This isn’t to say marketers don’t have power mind you, but it’s more a case of adapting for the interactive marketing environment.

I believe the idea of using online interaction as a platform for relationship marketing is a viable way for companies to create good will towards the company amongst consumers, allow consumers to be involved in the brand and attempt to harness the power consumers possess online. In relationship marketing, it is important for companies to remember that this is a relationship, true interactivity goes 2 ways, having an active audience isn’t enough. Deighton and Kornfeld describe this online interaction as “Co-production of social meaning”. The generation of meaning coming from both parties really defines the idea of interactivity.

There are, I believe, good and bad ways to go about it. Personally I think consumers have the best ideas. At the end of the day they are the ones who use the brand and know the most about it from a consumer’s point of view. This surely is the best way to see a true reflection of a brand? Therefore interacting with them can produce a wealth of information, in an online environment where they feel comfortable.

 A good example of how interactivity going wrong comes from a campaign in the US from JP Morgan Chase. They set up a Facebook page on which users could vote for charities which they think deserved a cut of the $5m fund JP Morgan. Worryingly however “ In the final days of the initial vote, charities involving pro-choice organisations and marijuana lobbyists that had been doing well in the ranks suddenly disappeared from view. The voting leader board was also removed” – Marketing Week [2].  This is a prime example of a poorly thought out campaign, looking to capitalize on other success in the social media arena. A flimsy attempt to interact with consumers. The outcome of this campaign leaves the company looking untrustworthy and lacking control, in an industry where trust and control are key issues. This stresses the importance of well planned interactivity.

[3]

The last case shows a lack of imagination and has little resonance with consumers. Doritos launched a campaign in the UK in 2008, similar to one in the US, asking the public to make an advert that could be sent into outer-space, to inform them of what life is like on Earth. A prize fund of £20,000 and an advertising slot on live TV was used as an incentive and anybody with a video camera could make an ad and share it! Doritos’ youtube channel allowed users to access the best of these ads. This meant consumers could interact by making, viewing, voting and commenting on ads, the accumulation of these factors is perfect example of web 2.0 and interactivity in full flow. Doritos have managed to give consumers complete freedom, whislt achieving control. The campaign has become an annual event, 2009’s prize fund rising to up to £200,000. The winning ad from 2008 can be seen below [4]

For some even better (in my opinion) user generated ads just take a look at the ones made in the US http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/, whose prize includes the winners ad being professionally produced and shown during the Super Bowl where one 30 second as slot can cost as much as $3m dollars. Their success documented within social media by being the most talked about ad on twitter being mentioned 80,000 times in the 6 hours surrounding the event [5].

Interactive social media therefore is something which, when done properly, can do wonders for a brand. The idea that the consumer has the power requires companies to have faith in their products and services, and listen carefully to what the almighty consumer has to say.


Top Tweeter: @MarketingB2B
Reccomended Read: How Social Media is Changing the SuperBowl http://mashable.com/2010/02/04/social-media-super-bowl/

[1] Deighton, J.A and Kornfeld, L. Digital Interactivity: Unanticipated consequences for Markets, Marketing and Consumers. http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/08-017.pdf

[2]Marketing Week http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/interactive-brands-gain-competitive-advantage/3010046.article

[3] JP Morgan Chase http://tinyurl.com/698l6kz

[4] Doritos - "Tribe" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWpnehprYc0

[5] thenextweb http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/02/07/super-bowl-reportedly-generates-4-5-million-tweets-doritos-wins-battle-of-the-ads/