Consumer Control, Interactivity and Word of Mouth - Final Blog Post

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

[1] O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Available from: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html#mememap

[2] Clarke, W., 2011. Coca-Cola VP Talks About the Keys to Social Media Success. Available from: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/04/coca-cola-vp-talks-about-the-keys-to-social-media-success.html

[3] American Express.,2010. Final Winning Charities. Image. Available from: http://www.takepart.com/membersproject

[4] Edelman, D.,  2010. Gaining an edge through digital marketing. McKinsey Quarterly. Issue 3. Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?sid=bbb5c945-bbad-40e1-ae79-508ed2f2e24f%40sessionmgr115&vid=3&hid=103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=52645942

[5] Hardey, M. 2011. To spin straw into gold? New Lessons from consumer-generated content. International Journal of Market research. Vol53 issue1. Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bbb5c945-bbad-40e1-ae79-508ed2f2e24f%40sessionmgr115&vid=9&hid=4

[6] Blackshaw, P., 2008. The Six Drivers of Brand Credibility. Journal of Marketing Management.  May-June 2008. Available form:  http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bbb5c945-bbad-40e1-ae79-508ed2f2e24f%40sessionmgr115&vid=11&hid=102

[7] American Express, 2011. Sources New Customers Use to Find Them according to US Small Business. Graph.  Available from:  http://searchenginewatch.com/3642207

[8] eMarketer, 2008. Mobile Social Network Users Worldwide. Graph. Available from: http://www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?code=emarketer_2000489

Social Media - Put Your Marketers Hat On! - Blog Week 8

Whilst writing a digital communications blog, let’s not lie, social media is going to crop up a few times. And here goes again. This week let’s take a broader look at social media strategies and a few more industry examples of how to really immerse your brand in a social media campaign. So much has changed in the world of social media even since my 1^st blog back in February!

What I want to argue in this blog is the idea that a social media campaign needs traditional marketing theory behind it. Many social media campaigns as I have expressed in previous blogs, don’t have a real strategy, however I think some campaigns go further than this and not only don’t have a particular strategy behind it, but don’t apply basic marketing common sense as well as remembering social media isn’t just a gimmick, it should lead to sales.

[1]

[2]

The above images outline demographic information about Facebook and Twitter users and acts as a great indicator of whether or not you are actually appealing to your key demographic. When looking closely at this information Facebook is clearly dominated by a younger demographic, 40% of users aged between, 13-25.  Only 7% of users are aged over 55, combine this fact with the statistic that only 40% of users follow a brand, and just 51% of those users actually will purchase this brand, the fact that SAGA Life Insurance (Specialising in over 50’s) has a Facebook page, seems rather pointless in simple terms.

• It does not appeal to their key demographic. (Do over 50’s really scour Facebook for their life insurance policy?)
• It does not fit in with their media strategy
• It takes time to create, monitor and interact individuals with properly

There is no evidence of marketing common sense, theory or strategy here. It’s something we can definitely learn from. Something I recall from a recent guest lecture from Daryl Wilcox, is that he pointed out how useful it is for companies to play around with social media. Ok, I agree, but in the right context, and does it always have to go live? For example did SAGA really need to play around with social media? In my opinion, no. Granted he is talking in generalities but I believe social networking can be damaging to a brand, if it doesn’t fit in with brand strategies.

So how do we go about it effectively, incorporating basic marketing principles, being ethical, responsible and at the end of the day, be profitable.  The example of coca cola is one which incorporates all of these. With over a quarter of a million followers on twitter and a staggering 25 million likes on Facebook, and an impressive 20 million YouTube upload views. They aren’t only incredibly popular they are effective.

The video [3], explains their “Online Social Media Principles”, (For more details visit: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/socialmedia/) . 

[3]

These principles (Below)

·         LEADERSHIP : The courage to shape a better future;

·         COLLABORATION : Leveraging our collective genius;

·         INTEGRITY : Being real;

·         ACCOUNTABILITY : Recognizing that if it is to be, it's up to me;

·         PASSION : Showing commitment in heart and mind;

·         DIVERSITY : Being as inclusive as our brands; and

·         QUALITY : Ensuring what we do, we do well.

outline how they want their associates to act online, personally and on behalf of the company. In more detail, they explain the need to be transparent in all of their social media actions, something which is vital in gaining trust online. They encourage their employees to be part of the social media campaign, immersing the company in it, whilst sustaining a manageable and realistic budget. The fact that they make sure the employees who are part of the campaign are responsible personally as well on behalf of the company shows they go the extra mile.

Coca Cola put most of their time into Facebook, when analysing our demographic statistics, this makes a lot of sense, especially due to the young nature of users, evidence that they are identifying their target market, an insanely key marketing principle. They facilitate discussion about their products, brand and user experiences, making sure that it’s not all discussion around marketing concepts but actual product uses. Making sure that social media leads to purchase and loyalty. Once again at the end of the day if social media, just means followers and likes and isn’t resulting in sales, then it’s of little use.  This can been seen in Coca Cola’s rivals Pepsi, who spent over half of their branding budget on social media, shunning traditional media, as at first it seemed hugely successful, with a great response to their “Fresh Project”, using social media to facilitate the suggestions of consumers as to which charities and causes Pepsi should donate money to. Despite the incredible response Pepsi sales slipped. Some argue this is due to social media just not being as effective as traditional media in increasing sales. However I feel Pepsi removed themselves too far from their product, unlike Coca Cola.


Top Tweeter: @paddypower - A slightly different way of handling part of your social media strategy, from the owner of the company himself. Funny, interesting and most importantly has sales in mind at all times.


Reccomended Read: http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/how-pepsi-lost-its-facebook-war-with-coke/8254 Pepsi not doing so well. Quite interesting figures too.

[1] Facebook Graph. via Marketing Week. Available from: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/blogs/lara-oreilly/facebook-and-twitter-demographics-explain-marketers%E2%80%99-social-media-demand/3025477.article

[2] Facebook Graph. via Marketing Week. Available from: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/blogs/lara-oreilly/facebook-and-twitter-demographics-explain-marketers%E2%80%99-social-media-demand/3025477.article

[3] Andy Sernovitz Interview: Coke's New Social Media Policy. via sernovitz. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6R161hDAH4&feature=player_embedded 

Digital Public Sphere. Shoud Marketers Fear? - Blog Week 7

The public sphere, coined by Habermas [1], was originally a place where public discussion was participated in, free from elitist influence, within which real democracy was found. Soon this was (as described by Poor, 2005 [2]), “corrupted and co-opted in part by the commercialization of the press through advertising and entertainment.”

This ideal, in some ways, was replicated online through the creation of multiple digital public spheres. Giving instant access to a global public spheres to millions. The idea of multiple public spheres is one which simplifies and organises the online community into subject areas, interests and discussion topics. The notion that the online public sphere is a diasporic utopia is one which cannot be justified. There are several problems with it, however it is largely free from elitist influence, there are few barriers to entry and it is a place where ideas are judged on merit, not on social standing. For marketers, who try to influence and convince people to buy products or create a favourable view towards a certain brand through mass media, where political and hierarchal standing are still hugely important, the online public sphere may seem a scary and threatening prospect.

Hans-Jorg Trenz (2009) argues that, in a Habermasian context:

 “The public sphere was perceived as a counter-weight to political representation. What was formerly represented now needed to be legitimated through public reasoning”

I believe this concept, illustrated in a political format can be mirrored in the marketing world digitally. Marketers representations of their product, it’s uses and perceived quality can be legitimated in online discussion forums, through blogs and social media.

This idea can be beneficial to both parties, consumer and marketer. For the consumer it is a way of avoiding post purchase dissonance, the feeling that a wrong decision has been made, possibly purchasing the wrong product and the purchase was unjustified. Discussion of the product and the opinions of others within the public sphere can help to counteract this cognitive dissonance and justify the decision.

For marketers the public sphere can be monitored, in the same way as social media monitoring which has been previously discussed in this blog (http://tobydawsonmarketing.blogspot.com/2011/02/tweet-child-o-mine-blog-week-1.html). This can act as a place for free market research to take place in a natural setting, without participants feeling like what they are saying is being monitored.  The digital public sphere can facilitate discussion of marketer’s products and actions however there are several pitfalls and downsides to this totally live, unpredictable and dynamic environment.

The digital age has allowed anonymity in discussion, meaning individuals aren’t accountable for what they say. Often “flaring” takes place, people purposely say negative and controversial things to stir up arguments rather than discussion, having a detrimental effect on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the digital public sphere.

The fact that the digital public sphere is so dynamic and current, companies should be aware of what is being said and who Is saying it. It is important from a PR perspective to not let false or damaging comments from respected sources bring your companies name into disrepute. If there is one thing I’ve learnt about PR it’s to say it first and tell the truth. The digital public sphere is so wide spreading, information has the potential to become “contagious” therefore it is important to make important information know within the sphere, in it’s correct context and with ALL of the facts.

Top Tweeter: @mashable for social media and digital tweets. Get some really interesting facts from them as well at times.

Recommended read: Digital Media and the Return of the Representative Public Sphere – (Link below) – Genuinely one of the most interesting articles I’ve read at Uni (and that’s a lot!). Not too long either, and makes a heavy subject surprisingly light!

[1] Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichi<eit. Frankfurt: Suhrkam

[2] Poor, N.,2005. Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 4. Available from:  http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/poor.html

[3] Hans-Jorg Trenz., 2009. Digital Media and the Return of the Representative Public Sphere. Javnost – The Public. Vol. 16 Issue 1, p33-46. Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=32f7f080-699c-45db-b609-538b3f6e2f3d%40sessionmgr104&vid=5&hid=20

Your Behaviour, Their Business!? Digital Privacy in Targeted Online Advertising - Blog Week 6

Ever wondered why, when you are searching on some of your favourite sites online, some very tempting and suspiciously targeted items or services are being advertised you? Well, behavioural targeting :
“The practice of seeking out consumers based on where they go and what they do as indicators of what their interests are most likely to be” [1]
is becoming an increasingly popular, and effective way of advertising to consumers online.

Online Behavioural targeting spend is increasing year on year (US figures) [2]and when companies like Google aquire a company like DoubleClick, who specialise in targeted advertising online, for a whopping $3.1 Billion (that’s nearly DOUBLE what they paid for YouTube) you know it’s big business.

[2]

Sites track unique information about the users and where they click, recording this information using “cookies”. Profiles of individuals can be built up and advertising targeted. For example I’m a Football Fan, living in Bournemouth, who’s recently been considering whether to go to the Red Bull FlugTag event in Leeds. Just take a look at the advertising that’s on my Facebook profile [3]. The evident question that stands is; Is this an invasion of your privacy? The fact that a company knows what bands I like, what football team I support and what purchases I’ve made or not made. Something about this process seems unfair on the consumer however the ambiguous, out dated and ineffective policing of online privacy, allows this.

[3]

I believe an issue which has not been touched on in much I’ve read around the subject is the issue of remarketing. When a user mulls over a product, or looks at it in greater detail, this is logged and targeted advertising can be created to constantly remind, and encourage the purchase of these items. The image below [4]shows how this can be executed.

[4]

I recently looked to purchase a new set of headphones from play.com, however couldn’t really afford them.  Whilst on a totally unrelated site (caughtoffside.com, a football rumours website) play.com are advertising this item and other ones I’ve looked at with a “shop now” button, taking me straight through to a purchasing page.  Denegri Knott [5] speaks about how consumer desire can be more easily actualised in e-consumption, with the option to “buy it now” on e-bay, however this is in an online auction environment where users accept they are in a place where their ability to purchase will be exploited. This I believe is fair, marketing is all about encouraging purchases and making the most out of consumer desires; however I would argue that encouraging purchasing in a more personal environment, where consumers desires are not to purchase but to be informed, entertained or using information which an individual has not willingly disclosed is unethical and irresponsible.  Unwanted or irrelevant  targeted communications , can annoy, be received as inappropriate and discourage consumers from a brand. Spamming through e-mails  did exactly this and targeted online advertising could go this way, online retailers beware!

Reccomended Read: Denegri-Knott, J., 2010. ‘Have it now!” : eBay and the acceleration of consumer desire –  Interesting and enlightening way in which we purchase online, and does remind you of behaviours you possess, even if you didn’t know it.

Top Tweeter: @mtlb (Bill Green) worth checking out his blog too! #advertising

[1] Miller, R and Washington, K. Consumer Behavior, 2011, p345: http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf25_26/pdf/2011/2EL2/01Jan11/58591724.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=58591724&S=R&D=bth&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESep684v%2BbwOLCmr0mep69Ss664SrOWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGts0y1ra5QuePfgeyx43zx

[2]US Behaviourally Targeted Online Advertising Spending 2006-2012 (millions) via emarketer: http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/behavioral-targeting-ad-spend-poised-for-growth-with-help-from-online-video-5019/emarketer-behaviorally-targeted-online-ad-spend-2006-2012jpg/

[5] Denegri-Knott, J., 2010. ‘Have it now!” : eBay and the acceleration of consumer desire. In: European Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, 30 June-3 July 2010 , Royal Holloway, University of London.