How do you create a movement without scale?

You can't. At least not in the traditional sense.

Segmentation of media has rendered the concept of  a "movement" into a much more digestible (and achievable) concept. Hitting the "mainstream" has never been easier.

How? After all, shouldn't fragmentation hurt this process?

Yes and no.

Humans are social animals. They break off into groups and organize themselves on culture, spiritual and language similarities. From tribes, to city-states, to nations we have steadily created more complex and intricate ties to build out what makes us part of a group. This culminated in the 20th century with the invention of mass media and the rise  of nationalism.

Then the internet happened.

What impact did the internet have on group dynamics?

Fragmentation. Instead of forcing people to mobilize around a watered down idea it allowed for them to construct their own identities with a (very!) similar group of people. Information stopped moving vertically and started moving sideways.

Audience atomization overcome - A new pattern of information flow, in which “stuff” moves horizontally, peer to peer, as effectively as it moves vertically, from producer to consumer.

A few examples:

Ice Chewers - A community for people who love to chew ice...way too much.

Juggalo Faith - An invaluable resource for that rare handful of folks who are both Insane Clown Posse fans (aka "Juggalos") and God-fearing Christians.

Dancing Alone to Pony - People who love to get down alone to Ginuwine's seminal hit.

Niches have essentially crushed our need to consensus build. We can now exist in a world where everyone we interact with socially, shares the same motivations. This is great for our self-esteem, not so great for exposure to differing viewpoints. This has led to accelerating polarization.

After all, how could someone like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman come along and take over the national  scene? They don't ascribe to or even try to appeal to most of America what they do instead is focus on a specific set of highly motivated vocal supporters.

In marketing we call these supporters "influencers".  These are the catalysts for any successful movement, whether it's for sharing a video or casting a vote. These influencers have a disproportionate amount of say into what ideas succeed or fail.

It is with this mindset that we can divide all online movements (natural and manufactured) into two camps:

Altruism - A desire for good. Kickstarter, Causes.com, Reddit and Social Good.

Anonymity - A desire for mischief. 4chan, Reddit and Something Awful.

Every marketing campaign, political initiative, or community based initiative needs to have one of these ideas at their core. Otherwise, they run the risk of feeling forced or even worse? Contrived.

How does this mesh with your sense of community? Have you constructed a movement/marketing campaign with these core ideas at their center?

Andrew Carnegie's style of vertical integration is no longer possible for most (if not all) companies. The primary reason being that we've moved from a brick and mortar world to a digital one. You can't really "own" data and code.

Numerous attempts at controlling the flow and spread of code (see DRM, CD keys etc.) have failed miserably due to the culture of free that seems to propagate the digital world. Therefore any attempt to build a stand alone ecosystem will fail. If it doesn't connect; it doesn't work.

The How

Why then do companies like Facebook and Google succeed while more traditional companies flounder? By embracing the idea of fluid integration.

Vertical integration relies on a closed loop. Fluid integration relies on an open loop.

How does fluid integration work? Collect data from consumers, not in the traditional sense though. By providing various utilities, services and experiences companies can learn more about you. All they ask in return? A small tracking code that follows you around the web. Thus, the ecosystem that they create is one that doesn't rely on control but rather the sharing and propagation of data.

The Why

When setting out to build something we have to consider that people use products for two reasons:

1. They need the product.

2. The product was recommended to them.

New products (especially digital ones) rarely fall into the first category. After all, if someone needed something wouldn't they have already invented it? Start-ups live and die by the mantra that they are inventing something that people need, they just don't know it yet.

This is also why 90% of start-ups will fail.

Corporations can't innovate the same way start ups do. The reason? They need to make money. Their  margins are slimmer thus so is their appetite for risk.  Every action they take will have an impact on the bottom line.

The Evolution

How then do corporations/agencies innovate effectively?

1. Allow any (non-sensitive) data  you possess to be accessed via an API.
2. Does someone do something better than you do? Integrate and connect with ecosystems already in existence.
3. Ask your customers. They're just as invested in your brand as you are and can provide the "Emperor has no clothes." type of advice that goes overlooked by internal resources.
4. Test. Test. Test. You can't innovate unless you test/try out new features.

How else can we improve/innovate a company's experience? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Image Credit: kalebrewer

Where I've been for the past month:

"You Above All"

Planning, perspiring and propagating for the launch of Mullen's first work for JetBlue.

Hope you enjoy!

Can you create serendipity?

Great marketing provides branding, an experience and utility. Serendipity is usually an after-thought. How can you create a genuine and timely experience for the consumer? Shouldn't the experience suffice?

No.

We're at the point where the timing of the message is often more important then the content inside that message. What does this mean in operational terms? Serendipity is not only possible in the future; it's expected.

However, the pieces, strategy and best practices of predictive modeling within marketing are still developing. Up until now, marketing has been about creating experiences; not ecosystems.

Evolving: From experiences to ecosystems

Ecosystems aren't a new phenomenon. They've existed since the inception of advertising. The problem is that today they've come to resemble this PowerPoint of the war in Afghanistan. Thus, most marketers are content to try and create experiences.

The best example of a marketing ecosystem in today's market is Apple's mobile platform. Apple has created a place where the best possible experiences for the user is guaranteed via a draconian vetting process. This ideology has been extended with the introduction of their iAd, which seeks to create advertising "worthy" of the Apple experience.

However, this type of ecosystem has a shelf-life. It's unsustainable when technology and access start to surpass the original experience. (Having AT&T as the primary carrier isn't exactly helping either...)

Convergence

What do Facebook, Google, Internet browsers and your credit card have in common? They actively collect data on your behavior. Each click is tracked, each purchase is monitored; all with the goal of making the advertisements and offers you receive more relevant.

Technology by itself is useless. It's a means to an end, nothing more. The same could be said about data; it's useless without interpretation. We're in luck though, the two are about to intersect in a revolutionary way.

Part II will be posted tomorrow.

Photo Credit: Barkbud

Where do you hear a joke first?

Is it from your friend? A relative? A co-worker? Online? Or from an actual comedian?

Maybe you were lucky enough to hear it in the original writing session.

Most of the time it won't matter. However, the medium through which the joke is received (and its make-up) will alter the listener's reaction.

Complexity and proliferation of channels has ensured that most of us will never be at the original telling of that joke.

Does this matter?

Purists say yes. After all, that's when the message is undiluted. Now apply this lens to a brand message. Does your perception change or remain the same?

My guess is that it shifts. Purists and marketers are thought of as an oxymoron (despite our best efforts). After all, our content doesn't always lend itself to easy conversation or an emotional response. In fact, this is the very reason that most of us (marketers) are hired in the first place.

How else could a conversation about shoes become a story about happiness?* Or a conversation about food becomes one about community? We try and take a brand's essence and distill it down into a singular emotion that is both easy to grasp and synonymous with the consumer experience.

Why then are some of us so fearful of someone taking the simplicity of the message and re-purposing it?

Simple: It's a matter of credit.

Engagement is now a metric. It's a measure of success that we are judged upon. However, the current tools with which we measure product conversation are still in their infancy. They are platform dependent in a platform agnostic world.

Conversation operates in cells of influence, much like Al-Qaeda. The hierarchy is disparate, confusing and the sheer volume makes it almost impossible to analyze the true reach of a campaign or program.

We are at a creative crossroads: do we embrace the remix or do we adhere to the tradition of message crafting? The answer is obvious. The way in which we measure our success is not.

Don't ask where a conversation should live, think about where it can spread from.

*This was all Zappos. Just want to be clear about that.

(If you don't? You really should go find out.)

First!

Being first isn't about winning a race, nor is it about knowing something before anyone else. It isn't even about being first to attain something. (Ask all the people who just bought iPhone 4s...or a commenter getting ripped on 4chan.) Being first really means that your brand has the agility (balls) to be a trailblazer and take a chance on leveraging unique pop-culture and internet phenomenons before they expire.

Will some attempts fail? Absolutely. However, if you don't throw things against the wall? Nothing will stick. Thus, you need to take chances and try and capitalize on opportunities when they present themselves.

The MySpace problem

Don't worry Mr. Murdoch, if movies are any indication? MySpace is alive and well. Most Hollywood movies have a lengthy development time. A script has to be written, producers from a studio need to option said script, actors need to be cast, locations need to be chosen, film than must be shot... Typically, you're looking at a development cycle of 2-3 years (if you're lucky). Unfortunately for movie producers and their creators? The technology cycle does not. Thus, you end up with dated references, bizarre "hacking" shown on screen, and laughable usage of tech terms.

Creating a campaign or new marketing push for a brand is no different. However, marketers have the advantage of being able to churn out individual programs at a much faster rate than Hollywood and have them link into the brand program. So why don't more brands and marketers take advantage?

Planning for a Trend

The key to any agility based initiative is speed. Thus, in order to best take advantage of these relevant opportunities you need to have someone with their hand on the pulse of the internet (and thus pop culture). Short-tail gains added up can equal big revenue for a brand, especially if they are cost effective. Planning for these opportunities is the best way to take advantage. As counter intuitive as that statement might sound it's actually true.

Real-Time Execution

This is the hardest part. In fact, it's  damn near impossible. The larger the brand? The more approval processes and bureaucracy that you need to wade through.

W+K's Old Spice will be the standard that most creative directors and brands point to when describing how this could possibly be done. The trick here was that this actually came from a very traditional team (who were working with some very talented technologists). The tone, feel and identity of the Old Spice guy had been firmly established well before he even existed.

See video below:

Sound familiar?

What's Next?

Self awareness, casual asides and usage of references that border on ADHD. Get familiar with the term "meta". Quentin Tarantino, Family Guy and South Park have changed the way we approach and think about culture. (Although, I'm quite sure Family Guy does in fact use manatees.)

Remember, you can use this approach; but only if it actually is on brand and cohesive with the campaign you are running.

Anyone can make a video that has a chance of blowing up, but it takes a genius to make that video on behalf of an insurance company.

]]> http://thelostjacket.com/branding/agility/feed 5 http://thelostjacket.com/marketing/awesome-medium http://thelostjacket.com/marketing/awesome-medium#comments Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:30:21 +0000 Stuart Foster http://thelostjacket.com/?p=6618

It's not about having the best (creative) idea.

Twelpforce: Participatory, saves money, and provides a creative solution. It's crowdsourcing done right.

It's getting the best idea to market (and effectively framing your message). In other words; the best business idea.
Great marketers tell stories. Constraints help shape them. Great stories break constraints.
Ouch. Makes your head hurt doesn't it? This is the current situation that marketers are dealing with. Now compound this with attention scarcity, a broadcast mentality and an afterthought on digital? You have one heck of a mess.

Stop trying to figure it out.

This short film from Johnnie Walker by all intents and purposes of traditional marketing shouldn't work. Yet it does (and it's beautiful to boot).

You should have only two qualifications for creating a marketing program: a) Is it useful? and b) Is it awesome?
If the answer to both those questions is yes? Congratulations, enjoy Cannes. (No seriously.)
Those two traits are at the heart of every great campaign, program and brand for the last one hundred years (and will be for the next one hundred years).

Defining Utility

This may save your life.

Utility needs to provide a direct tangible benefit to the consumer of your content. However, the key is providing valuable, useful marketing that doesn't want to make your consumer take a drill to their head to break up the boredom. Utility isn't so much about the medium as the end result.

Lower barriers to entry, providing brisk service and a solution that works all take precedence (not complete control mind you) over content style/creation. Sometimes, the most effective utility is as simple as an informative print ad. Utility is a true example of the ends needing to justify the business means.

Utility is essential. It won't truly take off though unless it's awesome.

Defining Awesome

If I have to describe why this is awesome to you? Get the hell off this blog. No, seriously.

What is "awesome"? It's a harder question than you might think. After all, we all have different interpretations of what it's made up of. Faris Yakob puts it better than anyone I've ever heard before in this summation:

"And technology isn't just about utility.
It can be about emotion - especially awe.
As I allude to above, the NYTimes has done a study of the most shared articles on their website and they all trigger awe - which makes sense because
AWE IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SHARE
Which is why it incumbent upon us to always be looking for the awesome."

Thus in order to want to share something; your content needs to be awesome. "Want" shouldn't be anywhere the equation; you need to share this content. Consumers don't share marketing with their friends because they care about brands, they share that information because they care about their friends.

All Shapes, All Sizes

Don't be constrained by medium though. In order to be effective you need to be able to think beyond mediums, length, constraints and anything else.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a run time of 558 minutes (683 minutes in the extended version). It also has the honor of being the most lucrative film trilogy of all time.

By your powers combined...

All marketing (that works) can be boiled down into awesomeness and utility. The key is figuring out to to combine the two in the most effective manner and how it directly relates to/satisfies your business objectives. How do you think marketing will evolve moving forward? Will it still adhere to these two tenets?

(Par-a-site) n. 1.  An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Fill a need. Position accordingly. Profit.

It's that simple. Parasites do this better then anyone. They fill holes in a product and in turn leverage that product's popularity to spur on their own development.

Why then do parasitic business models fail so often? After all, in the animal kingdom these creatures are the epitome of efficiency and survival. Granted they aren't the most loved...

Simple: They are at the mercy of their host. For an example of this, see the recent decision of Twitter to ban 3rd party ad platforms from their service.

Parasitic business models are a calculated risk. It often comes down to timing and the quality of product that you provide. Tweetie is a success story. Ad.ly is probably toast. They easily could have switched places.

Parasitic marketing on the other hand? Could not be  more successful  in the right hands (given that a proper code of conduct is observed). The key is co-opting an existent platform and adding additional information and functionality to it.

Filling a Niche

The best marketing solves a problem. Whether this problem is branding, positioning or business-related, it has to serve as a utility for pre-existing need in order to be valid.

Thus, you need to think more about what you can make first, and then concentrate on the emotion you can create. Then, building solutions to problems is far more effective.

Parasitic marketing isn't right for every situation. For example, you don't want to intercept and reshape a message. Nor do you want to deceive or mislead. However, you do want to provide valuable information or products where relevant and appropriate.

Crashing the Conversation

Twitter has popularized this phenomenon. Marketers often sit on key terms and relevant subjects to which they contribute. This phenomenon has also started happening on Facebook with the introduction of tagging various pages in individual posts.

Example:

The key isn't to crash, it's to listen, position and provide helpful, relevant information when needed. Most people are receptive to your message if you are filling a need. Thus, if you approach your marketing this way, you will be far more effective.

Augmented Reality: Ultimate Parasitic Marketing

Stickybits. Springpad. Foursquare. All represent the evolution of augmented reality, yet none could exist without the understanding that they were building upon pre-existing infrastructure. Twitter and Facebook are approaching Google-type importance. Thus, in order to leverage these services in the most efficient way possible, you need to connect to them via one of these 3rd party apps.

Augmented reality is just that. Reality with a helpful parasite gleaning information, context and chipping in helpful advice. It will be exciting to see what further developments occur over the next year.

A Helpful Parasite

Before engaging and actively seeking out platforms to augment, you need to ask yourself these five questions:

1. What are you adding to the conversation around the product?

2. Are you interrupting the natural sales cycle?

3. Are you respecting the rights of the community you are operating within and being a good citizen?

4. Do you have an open line of communication with your host/product?

5. Does your contribution/marketing make the original product better?

If your answer to any of these questions is in the negative? Stop what you are doing. You're spamming. It's a fine line, but you need to maintain it in order to be successful.

Parasitic marketing always needs to augment the platform/product, not detract from it.

Do you have some examples of marketing that could technically be termed "Augmented" or "Parasitic"? Share them below.

Photo Credit: Cousins West

Cognitive Biases - A Visual Study Guide by the Royal Society of Account Planning

Aspiring planners: Make flashcards out of this presentation.

I know I will be.

(from PSFK)

Want to confuse someone? Start talking about the importance of geotargeting, user profiles and predictive data modeling.

Now ask them if they’ve checked into Foursquare yet.

Geolocation is hot. As in, $150-million-dollars hot. Why shouldn’t it be? It blends mobile, contextual information, gaming and serendipity into a relevant experience, enabling users to change their behavior based on the actions of their friends (or enemies).

“Checking-in” isn’t just colloquial geek-speak; it’s the new human behavior.

Have you thought about the true intention of these tools?

Despite what detractors may say, Foursquare doesn’t exist to help burglars rob your house while you’re away (pleaserobme.com). Strangers probably don’t care about your exploits/check-ins. As marketers, however, we should be concerned with the aggregate data being collected and categorized around points on a map. How can we leverage it to our advantage? How is this information pertinent to your brand and objectives?

“Open by default” (meaning that information a user posts on a social site is, by default, available to the public) has led to the development and improvement of data collection, with Facebook and Google leading the way. We may have reached a critical mass of information, but at least now we can build predictive modeling around the data and market accordingly.

Foursquare, Gowalla, Loopt and Britekite have built context into locations and places that’s a gift to marketers. The world is now a physical Wikipedia entry. Data can be aggregated from everyone and extracted from everywhere.
Consumers may think that geolocation is a game, but for us it’s a new way to talk with consumers.

With both Google and the Library of Congress committed to archiving dialogue from social platforms, conversation is now part of the public forum for discussion. It’s also universally accessible, searchable and eternal—a huge shift for content formerly viewed as spontaneous and disposable.

With this mindset, we’ve begun to see the first forays into leveraging geolocation for brands. Local businesses in major metro areas like NYC and San Francisco are creating “Tips” (partnerships/deals with brands) that prompt a location-aware ad targeted directly at the individual. These special offers are opt-in and usually of high relevance to the user.

Brands are also sponsoring in-game rewards for users. For example, Bravo has created specific Foursquare badges based on their programming. Check into a restaurant featured on “Top Chef” and earn a badge.
But what if we aren’t thinking big enough? Marketers could purchase and bid on entire swaths of physical space to target consumers.

The auction model is the future of geolocation.

The model breaks down like this: Companies bid for “Check-ins” around various locations. Obviously some places will have higher values then others. Then services could charge the company for the ability to communicate with a customer at each individual check-in.

A potential execution of this strategy could be enacted by a chain restaurant. The restaurant could purchase the physical space within 2-3 square miles or it could just buy space within all other restaurants and prompt consumers to reconsider their purchase decision.

It’s the Google ad model as applied to physical space. Instead of keyword targeting, companies could begin location targeting and identifying the behavior of their core customer profile. Couple this with the recent developments at F8 (Facebook‘s developer conference) and you suddenly have a crystal clear picture of a potential consumer.

Predictive algorithms are nothing new. However, they have never been used quite this way. For instance, we already recommend restaurants based on affinity (consumer likes Restaurant X, therefore he will like Restaurant Y), but not necessarily on activity (consumer checks in at Whole Foods so he is directed to an organic bistro in his neighborhood). You can predict a stock's relative growth based on past activity, so why couldn’t you predict consumer behavior the same way?

Mobile accomplishes what was once thought impossible: it allows someone’s online identity to follow him or her around offline.

Services like Plancast, Meet Gatsby and Riotvine are utilizing the location-based web to go beyond real-time data and actually put some thought into contextualizing it. They’re taking static data and making it dynamic and predictive on an operational level. By self identifying interest in a particular event or subject consumers can be served information relevant to their future activities. In essence, marketers can now effectively target peer groups and influence a change in behavior via peer pressure.

This is just the beginning.

We keep gaining new information about ourselves and our surroundings every day. Augmented reality has become a key part of tech’s evolution; not just a footnote.

Who knows what the future will hold?

Photo Credit: adoptanegotiator