Apr 4, 2011 | Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Bosses, often with no idea of marketing, and the social networks and how to engage them seem to be increasingly thinking forget the TV, (good idea that in most cases) “just make a silly/funny/outrageous video, and it will go viral”.
Voila, marketing success at little cost, up go the profits.
Wish it was that easy, if it was, everyone’s’ creative baby would get a million views on U-tube, but it only happens to a few.
The basic rules of marketing and communication still need to be respected. Identify a problem for a group that your product solves better than any other, demonstrate the solution, praise the value, and build a relationship between the user and the product.
Making a video of cats that look like Hitler and dancing babies only work very occasionally, then usually only once, so be relevant. Take a look at the “virals” in Tom’s narrative of his cartoon in the link, they work!
Mar 31, 2011 | Collaboration, Social Media
Social media can be seductive, the chase for the raw numbers, without considering the quality of the numbers.
I am little different, I like to see the numbers, which whilst relatively low, are steadily building on this blog, as the scattered individuals who find value in what I write slowly find me, and offer the opportunity to engage. However, amongst those who find me are those who will never take any value, or add any value to the content and debate I try to encourage, or who just want to sell me something. No use to me, or readers of this blog, so they must be filtered out, or they dilute the value.
Analysing the numbers becomes increasingly important as they grow, because in order to engage effectively, you must filter the electronic wheat from the chaff.
There are many tools to do this, Google analytics being the best known and widely used, but for a 60 year old non techo to install it on this WordPress hosted blog proved to be difficult, until this suggestion came along.
Thanks Paul.
Hopefully I can add some value by posting the link that will assist others as it helped me.
Mar 23, 2011 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
How does a branded product withstand the power of a retailer duopoly that controls 65% of Australia’s supermarkets?
That question has exercised the minds of proprietary FMCG brand owners for over 30 years, since the first house-branded “No Frills” products appeared on the now almost defunct Franklins shelves. It has become a really serious question over the last couple of years as the big two retailers more actively set about building a brand of themselves as more than a place to shop, but also a range of products to buy, following the patterns set in the UK by Tesco and Sainsbury, and it hotted up a month ago with the beginning of the “milk war”.
The Nielsen Global Private Label report puts Australia’s private label penetration at 14%, not really accurate if you happen to own a milk brand. Milk had a sales channel split between supermarket and route sales about 60/40, with Housebrands holding a share around 50% in supermarkets, but nothing in route, until a month ago. Overnight, the “milk war” has dragged sales from route into supermarkets, (I do not have the numbers) and the house-brand sales must be now 85-90% plus, again, I do not have the numbers, just a set of eyes. “Dairy Farmers”, “Farmers Union” “Paul’s” all venerable brands in the milk market have had their value decimated almost overnight.
Now it seems we have Fosters pulling their beer brands from the shelves of Coles and Woolworths owned liquor outlets as a defense against the risk of having their brand equity, built over long periods, with huge investments, being trashed by under cost sales by retailers. It may lose them lots of sales in these outlets, but the 50% of the market still controlled by independent retailers will be cheering, it offers them a competitive advantage over the chains to have brands like “VB” on shelf when Woolies and Coles owned Dan Murphy and First Choice do not.
Suppliers of produce to supermarkets have faced the dilemma for many years. The retailers simply will not allow proprietary branded products on their shelves, if you want distribution of your oranges, potatoes, or lychees, it is as unbranded produce, or increasingly branded with the supermarket brand. In these categories, housebrand share is 100%, so I wonder where the innovation will come from in this drive to the bottom of the price equation, and will consumers in the long run be better off?.
Back to the core question, to which I wish I had a simple, glib answer, but I don’t. However, I think the answer is tangled up in the way we manage the changes emerging from the digital revolution we are undergoing.
- Mass media is dead, the cost cannot in the long term be recovered if hard won brand equity can be destroyed overnight by a retailer who wakes up with a good idea. In the future, mass media will not be used to build brands, with the exception of a few huge multinational brands. Apart from the cost/risk equation, the “mass audience” has fragmented anyway, and is increasingly hard to find. Time to sell your shares in TV networks.
- Social media now has a framework for communication, like it or not, that framework has two major dimensions, called “Facebook” and “Twitter”. As we figure out how to use them, these two related frameworks, and the others offering similar but more specifically targetted access to individuals, will drive the way brands engage with their adherents, attract new ones, reward their loyalty, and build equity that is remote from the ravages of duopoly bricks and mortar retailers.
- Marketers have to get to grips with this stuff, mostly it is beyond the young brand manager who does not understand, and should not have the power anyway to make brand related decisions. The case for the CEO to be the “Chief Brand Officer” in any business is getting stronger daily.
Building a brand just got a whole lot harder. Dollars to spend now bears no relationship to success, nor does longevity, (facebook had its 5th birthday day before yesterday), so just hanging around is not an option. Instead, markets have to do the hard yards to really deliver value, huge value, to customers, and keep “value-innovating” as if their lives depend on it, as it surely does.
Mar 16, 2011 | Marketing, Social Media
Sorting the approaches and options emerging for on line marketing using social tools is sufficiently complicated to make your head break.
Logically, you use the net to try and sort out what is best for you under the circumstances you face, as the net is now the first stop when seeking information.
However, when you get there, it is like an overstocked supermarket, so many alternatives, each shouting their own greatness to you, offering you everything should you make the wise decision to “use me!!!!” Amongst all the e-shouting on the net, here is one that makes a lot of sense.
However, there is no substitute for the old fashioned marketing disciplines of understanding your customers needs, refining your offer of value to these customers, and communicating with them about how you can make their lives better, and most importantly, delivering on the promise.
In this context, the multiplicity of tools on the web become just more means to the end of adding value, they are not the end.
When confused, take the marketing Aspirin of keeping it simple, and ensuring above all else that you deliver on your promise, even better, over-deliver, to those few who trust you with their patronage.
Mar 15, 2011 | Personal Rant, Social Media
Today, March 15 is the 26th birthday of the internet as we know it. The first domain name, Symbolics.com, was registered on March 15 1985, and still exists.
From this humble beginning, just a generation ago has risen the greatest force for change since people realised that steam could be used to drive machines, and that idea took 150 years to filter through the world.
Sitting on the train today coming back from a meeting in the CBD, it appeared that every second person was using a smartphone for a seemingly wide range of things that had little to do with talking on the phone, and there were a number of tablet computers and e-readers going. Just a generation ago, phones were large black things with rotary dials that enabled you to talk to only one person at a time, and most households had only one! Newspapers were the curators, editors and suppliers of the news, most peoples network of friends was limited to about 50 at most, divided ionto a couple of categories, school, work, and social (mostly met at the kids activities), the post was the only way to get documents from one place to another, and marketing was all about broadcast communication to a mass market, segmented only by demographics and geography.
How things have changed in 26 years, I cannot begin to conceive what it will all look like in another 26 years.
Mar 10, 2011 | Change, Social Media
Organisations of all types and sizes are grappling with the impact of social media. It is simply a fact of life now that many if not most customers, employees, and value chain partners use it, the potential as a marketing and communication tool is only just starting to be leveraged, and the clash with the cultural norms of the 20th century organisation are profound.
The social media egg will not be unscrambled, and setting out to manage its implications on all the relationships that exist to make an organisation work by command and control mechanisms simply will not work. A new set of rules needs to apply, and we need to think differently about governance practices we employ, and look to what works elsewhere.
In addition to the governance issues, being effective in a hugely cluttered environment with no barriers to entry is remarkably difficult, so some simple marketing guidelines may be useful, irrespective of the delivery mechanism:
- Be relevant to those you wish to connect with, the #hashtag function in twitter enables others to search and filter posts for relevance.
- Concentrate on the important users/followers, having 25,000 followers may look impressive, but is useless for any sensible connection with the few who are important.
- Ask for input, help, comment, and it will come from a few of those who are engaged, clearly the ones you want to build a relationship, who share a connection.
- Build relationships first, sales may follow later, but without a relationship, there will be no sales. Consumers are a wary lot, rightly so, and looking like a pushy digital “used car salesman” will just turn people off.
