The most effective ads...the one's that confront

Some ads leave a lasting impression on people and re-frame the way they think and behave. They do so because they confront their audiences - usually with the truth about their perceptions - before proceeding to deal and convince them of their irrationality (if required) - in a direct and head on manner.

Two great pieces of communication that do this in my mind are 'the Great Schlep' with Sarah Silverman for Barack Obama by Droga 5 and an ad titled 'prejudice' that was done in 1994 for Hyundai in the UK.

The Great Schlep - Barack Obama campaign - Droga 5


Droga 5 did this viral video for the Barack Obama camp. It was aimed at the Jewish community and its goal was to overcome prejudice towards Obama given his African/American background and get older people down to polling booths to vote.

The video confronted the perceptions the community had towards Mr Obama in a direct yet humorous, funny and eminently watchable way as you'll see when you hit the play button. The ad also used fact to highlight the importance of voting in certain states. It reminded people for example how Al Gore lost the election to Bush and the state responsible - Florida! All in all a great piece of communication - one of the most powerful I have seen.


Hyundai - "Prejudice"

Another super super ad that confronted people and made them think about what was really driving their decisions to buy a car was Hyundai "Prejudice" - written in 1994 for the brand in the UK.

The ad questions consumers on why they really wouldn't buy a Hyundai. It confronts them with the dark truth that it might be due to something none of us in a civilised world ever want to be tainted with - prejudice.

The ad is on the line but doesn't cross it. It is questioning but not accusatory. Beautifully scripted, it opens a doorway to viewers at the end - highlighting how though prejudice may exist - knowledge invariably overcomes it.

Hyundai Prejudice - another case of the Brits once again showing the industry the way. I saw that ad in the nineties and it left a lasting impression on me that I felt compelled to share.

You have a social media monitoring tool. Now what are you going to do with it?

Social media monitoring is high on everyone's agenda at the moment. Technology companies have been quick to respond. They always are (they're the guys who gave us CRM and Y2K remember!). They've now introduced tools that do everything from capturing conversations to segmenting them by sentiment - negative, positive and neutral.

The real challenge for brands though the way I see it is not capturing conversations but doing something about them.

This is not as simple as it seems.

Social media conversations - issues vary
Very often I've found that social media conversations relate to the way a product has been designed, built or sold. Sometimes they point to an issue with the way a firm hires or treats its customers. And in still more cases they suggest a need for ethics, or for a firm to re-look or refocus on key elements of strategy such as staff empowerment or business process - such as its decision to outsource for example.

These issues do not require a company to set up a blog or presence on Facebook or Twitter. What they require it to do on the contrary is "introspect" and make fundamental changes to the way it operates if it is to successfully change the nature of conversations consumers are having about it online.

Bose - the brand people love to hate (well some people anyway)
Bose is a high end audio brand with a significant amount of negative publicity online.

This is driven largely by the audiophile community who see the brand's products as "overpriced" and "poorly built" using components that enable to maximise profits over performance.

Audiophiles (and they include high end audio dealers - a key influencing segment) - also rip into the brand for the way it chooses to sell its products. Bose insists on dealer exclusivity for example and does not allow customers to take their system home to try it before they buy it - a practice considered standard among audiophiles.

If Bose seeks to influence the conversations this segment (audiophiles) are having about it online, it will need to do a lot more than set up a blog or page on Facebook. It will need to relook its entire marketing value proposition - all the way from product design to build and sales experience.


Bose's response to social media so far has been unimaginative. It sued Consumer Magazine in the US for a negative review for $200,000. Only a change in its fundamental approach to business will get audiophiles to think and talk differently about the brand.

The problem - no one will review Bose's products any more. An issue given that when people buy an expensive audio system the first they do is check out its reviews online.

Walmart - people count - their opinions too
Walmart is America's biggest retailer with 2 million employees worldwide.

Consumer groups and employees slam the brand for its policies on a range of issues -low wages, poor working conditions, predatory pricing - the list goes on.

The unions started websites like walmartspeakout.com to force the retailer to change its game. The comments on the site are damning like this one from a staffer who chooses to remain anonymous "I’ve only been with Walmart for 3 months, and can already see the writing on the wall. Low wages, backbreaking work, unaffordable health insurance, and no personal life due to a ridiculous schedule!"

To make matters worse, in Feb 2009, a 58 year old employee set himself on fire and died saying he "couldn’t take working there any more”.

What’s amazing about all this is that Walmart had embarked on a social media strategy which consisted of engaging with bloggers, providing them with news and information about the company and even inviting to Walmart’s headquarters to see how things worked – as far back as 2005!

The strategy clearly hasn’t worked, as negativity towards the brand has continued.

The reason Walmart’s strategy hasn’t been successful I think is because the brand’s focus is still on social media – not the issues it has raised and that it clearly still needs to resolve within its business. The only way the brand will change conversations is by taking the issues people have raised head on and doing something concrete to address them.

Nike – if the shoe fits – wear it
Few brands have faced as much damage to their reputation as Nike. The brand’s refusal to address allegations over its use of sweatshops in Asia were one of the key reasons that competitors like Adidas were able to re-emerge as challengers.

Today conversations about Nike and its use of sweatshops continue in social media. The new debate is about the use of China as a hub to manufacture. The issue - workers are paid not just low rates but organised unions are not legal so they can’t complain.

To influence conversations, Nike must address the issues they raise. Unless it does so, demonstrating in the process a visible commitment to fair wage levels, the conversations people have about it online will continue to be mixed.

United – if you’re going to break anything – make sure it’s not a guitar


When Dave Carroll, lead singer for Sons of Maxwell boarded a United Airways flight bound for Nebraska and looked out of the window he was horrified to find baggage handlers throwing baggage into the air cargo hold

Part of the baggage they were throwing, were his band’s expensive music equipment which included his beloved Taylor guitar.

He immediately informed the air stewardess about the matter and asked if she could do help. She said she couldn’t as the baggage handlers were not United Airlines staff but contracted agents. If Dave wanted them to stop he’d have to speak to them himself.

He did. But they brushed him away as they left the tarmac.

When Dave got to Nebraska he checked his guitar and found that it had been smashed due to the way it had been handled. He spoke to United about the matter for the next 6 months but they refused to replace or repair his damaged guitar.

So then Dave did what any musician in his shoes would. He wrote a song about his experience “United breaks guitars’. The song went viral and got more 6 million views on YouTube with 37,000 comments about other customers’ experiences with the airline.

The issue for United
It’s not Dave’s guitar. It’s the systems the airline had in place to address his complaint, the level to which staff were empowered to act and the Airline’s decision to outsource an increasing number of processes – baggage handling being one of them.

Sure United may have saved a bit of money by contracting baggage to an outside supplier. However in doing so the airline lost control over the quality of service provided. In the process, they damaged their reputation…and Dave Carroll’s beloved guitar!

To stem the flow of negative conversation online, United doesn’t need social media marketers or bloggers to help. It needs to get its act together internally. Only once it does, will it have any chance to move the conversations the right way.

You have a social media monitoring tool.
Question is - what are you now going to do with it now?
You could spend hours playing with the options the dashboard gives you. You could sit in on any number of presentations by consultants to show you month after month what the latest conversations about your brand online are. Or you could – once you’ve identified the issues – decide to act on them. Move your focus from outward to inward, involve your organisations key stakeholders – and work with them to develop a lasting solution – ground up - to addresses the problems customers have raised - whatever they may be.

Where powerful ideas in advertising come from

In advertising, powerful insights equal powerful ideas. Three brands that have succeeded in creating them? Australian TELCO Optus, Indian brands - Cherry Blossom and MRF tyres.

This post is about the thinking that went into these brands and how successful ideas were generated for them. They are based on conversations I have had with the people who happened to be in the room at the time or in the cases of the Indian brands, knowledge I gleaned on the brands while I worked at the agency that created them - one of the best - LINTAS India.

OPTUS - says 'yes' when its competitors say 'no'
Australia was a market dominated by a single TELCO Telstra for the longest time ever. In the late eighties it had its first taste of competition when Cable and Wireless Group launched a competitive brand Optus.

When Optus was launched, George Patterson Bates, the agency that held the account at the time, did research into consumers trying to understand how they felt towards the category and the incumbent brand Telstra.

One of the biggest issues consumers had with Telstra was their poor service ethic at the time. According to consumers, whatever they asked Telstra for at the time, the answer would invariably be "No".

The agency took this insight and created a simple but powerful concept for Optus - simply called "yes"! The whole idea of "yes" was to highlight how Optus was a much more service orientated brand and a better choice for Australians as a result.

The campaign captured the imagination of Australians and made the Optus brand a strong number 2 to Telstra allowing it to eat massively into its share. "yes" is a part of Optus advertising even today - over a decade after launch.

The perfect gentleman always wears a Cherry smile
One of India's most powerful brands is a shoe polish called "Cherry Blossom." The advertising for Chery Blossom was created and handled for decades by my ex agency (LINTAS) when I worked in India briefly in the mid nineties.

As far back as the seventies, the agency researched consumers to find out how they felt about the task of polishing shoes. Most viewed it as "dull, boring and mundane. It was hard work and they wished they didn't have to do it."

The agency leapt on this insight and used it to create an iconic campaign that featured comic genius Charlie Chaplin. The whole idea behind the use of Chaplin was to distance the brand from the category negatives that threatened to overshadow it. Chaplin made the task of polishing shoes seem a lot more fun than it actually was. In doing so he transferred feelings and associations that were a lot more pleasant onto the Cherry Blossom brand which became one of the biggest and strongest in the country - with ads that people always wanted to watch.

 The Cherry Blossom campaign ran unchanged for decades. A great example of a brand that intelligently uncovered an insight that it then translated into a powerful piece of work that anyone who grew up in India has fond memories off.

MRF tyres - tyres with muscle
MRF tyres are the number one brand of tyres in India.The campaign was conceived I believe by the great Alyque Padamsee himself (CEO and Chief Creative officer of LINTAS at the time and one of the all time Indian advertising greats).

The story behind its creation is this. The biggest user group of tyres is truck drivers. So Alyque went onto a major highway and interviewed truckies as they rolled into the numerous "dhabas" along the way set up to serve them food and drink. When he asked them what they wanted from a tyre, a number of them would flex their muscles and say "takth" which in Hindi means "strength."

From this simple insight was born the idea of a muscle man carrying a tyre above his head with the tagline "MRF Tyres. Tyres with muscle" - an idea that contineues to define the MRF brand even today - decades after its launch.

Powerful insights lead to powerful ideas 
A powerful idea is one that stands the test of time. It''s not an idea that wins a Canne or a Clio. It's an idea that captures the imagination of its audience and in doing so makes the brand it has been developed for -  succesful.

Ads are an interruption - they don't have to be

In my observation, people consume media for two key reasons - to be informed or entertained.

It follows that if the advertising a brand puts out there links itself to either of these reasons – it is less likely to be perceived as an interruption and consumers are more likely to be receptive and accepting towards it.

A brand doesn’t truly “inform” until it tells its audience something they didn’t know about it before

If a consumer feels they already know the message a brand is trying to communicate, they will dismiss it on grounds of irrelevance and no objective or purpose will be served.

This is only natural – there is too much “noise” out there in the market so consumers will take every opportunity to “filter” some of it out.

Brands have to work harder with their advertising as a result. To be effective they need to genuinely “inform.” They can only do this by communicating facts that are new, interesting and relevant – and that tie back and reinforce the value proposition they represent.

Soup on the rocks – a new use for an old product

A long time (in 1972 to be exact), Campbells ran this ad for their range of soups in the US. What the ad does is show consumers how to use the product in a new way. In doing so, it proves to be genuinely “informative” as it gives consumers an idea into product use they may never have had before. Because of this, the ad and the brand as a consequence are a lot more likely to be mentally engaged with rather than discarded. The same can’t be said for the advertising of a lot of brands these days.

Schlitz beer – we wash our bottles with live steam

In the thirties the great Claude C Hopkins wrote a campaign for Schlitz beer. The idea - “we wash our bottles with live steam” All beers did so at the time – consumers just didn’t know it. The campaign made Schlitz one of the largest selling beers of the time. Why? It “informed.” It told consumers what they didn’t know – but clearly wanted to. The fact that Schlitz washed its bottles in live steam was important information as at that time health and sanitation were key issues. Bottles washed in live steam meant they were more sterile and that the beer was purer and better and safer to drink.

Insurance company claim - Australia

A third example – closer to our times comes from Australia. A few years ago I came across an ad for an insurer with a simple message that I thought was brilliant. The ad simply said “we pay 99.9% of all our claims”.

The ad again “informed”. It told consumers something they didn’t know but that they wanted to and was clearly relevant. They were more likely to engage and be receptive towards the message as a result.

Al Ries – raising questions and a furore

I am not sure how many of you remember, but a few years ago, marketing guru Al Ries raised a furore on Madison Avenue when he claimed in his book ‘the fall of advertising and the rise of PR” that advertising was ineffective at building brands while PR was.

I understand Al’s point – and I’m sympathetic to it. However I don’t think effectiveness has got anything to do with advertising or PR. Effectiveness I think is influenced largely by whether a brand is proving to be newsworthy or not – and in the right way of course.

If a brand is telling its audiences things they know about it already its messages will be discarded and its memory over time will fade.

PR has a historical but not necessarily a proprietary advantage over advertising here. PR’s whole premise is on creating stories about brands. The problem (or rather what has worked in PR’s favour) is that newspapers and other forms of media won’t accept or publish these stories unless they are newsworthy in some respect! PR’s whole focus is on ensuring they are as a result.

It is therefore not PR that is creating strong brands but its focus on newsworthiness that is!

If you adopt the same focus in your advertising as PR does then it is likely to be just as effective in building your brand. This is the point I think that Al Ries either missed or failed to communicate effectively enough to marketers when he launched his book.

Claude C Hopkins: “You don’t buy from a clown”

Claude Hopkins once said “you don’t buy from a clown.” Though I admire the man, I think he was wrong on this. You do. Ronald McDonald is testimony to this! As are scores of funny campaigns that have made millions for the brands they were conceived for.

Humour works because it is not only entertaining – it is disarming. It lowers barriers to sale and makes it possible for brands to own emotional territories that they would otherwise not be able to.

There is no shortage of humorous ads that have done very well in the market – “Happiness is a Cigar called Hamlet” is one, the Breast Cancer society ad is another (if only women paid as much attention to their breasts as men).

Edward De Bono takes humour a step further calling it “the highest form of intelligence”.

Entertainment has genres

Humour is only one of them. There’s also drama, action, documentary – all styles of narration that can be explored through advertising. Which one is appropriate depends on the product, category and key message your brand is trying to get out there.

Crispin Porter – Burger King

Crispin Porter used entertainment in a big way for Burger King.

Some time ago it embarked on a social experiment for the brand (as opposed to creating an ad!). What the agency did, in the campaign later named “Burger Freakout”, was tell people that Burger king had decided to take the Whopper™ off the menu. The reactions were captured live on video and edited into a hilarious series of videos that you can watch on the YouTube link provided. Please note the video contains coarse language – lots of it.

Why inform or entertain?

When you do, you achieve a closer fit with media and the key reason why people consume it in the first place.

Why do we switch on our TV sets if not to watch programmes that will take our minds off work? And why do we buy newspapers if not to keep abreast of the events happening around us and in the world?

When this happens the advertising your brand puts out is not seen as advertising any more - an interruption to the experience the audience seeks - but an enhancer to it on the contrary. In the process, you greatly increase the chances of your ads being more positively accepted and received.

What is your Media Saying about You?

A brand’s media choices say as much, if not more, about a brand as the ads written for it.

Yet it’s the area marketers tend to pay least attention to.

How do you decide whether your media strategy is aligned to your brand or not?

The starting point is to look at what your brand promises or stands for and ensure that its values are reflected in the media choices you make.

One brand that gets this idea and has implemented it beautifully is Mini Cooper
Mini has long been representative of all that is fun and quintessentially British. When Mini featured in the movie “Austin Powers - the Spy Who Shagged Me” (whether consciously or not), it used the script, the characters in the film and the actors (Michael Caine and Mike Myers) to supreme effect – bringing alive in a way few ads could – its core values – its quirky sense of British humour and fun.

Mini has done that for a while though. Right from the time it was chosen by Mr Bean as his choice of transport as he went about his wild and whacky capers. Quintessentially British – Mini has exercised its media options intelligently and well – using them to strengthen its brand, its core imagery and values.

Brands differ and so their media choices must too

The Catholic Church - authoritarian, strict
Two brands that are similar yet different are the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church.

The Catholic Church is not a liberal brand. On the contrary, it is authoritative, strict and intolerant of many practices considered okay in today’s society.

The Catholic Church forbids sex before marriage, for example, it is against homosexuality, opposed to female priests as well as the use of condoms.

Given the stance the brand has chosen to adopt, there are some media options that would work for it and others that would not. It would not be appropriate for the Church to market its message in adult chronicles like Playboy or Penthouse for example. Alternative lifestyle magazines like Blue or even popular shows like Oprah that deal in a fairly open manner with issues that would be contentious with the stand taken by the Church.

To do so would be to condone behaviour, values and lines of thinking it has long decided it must live in fundamental opposition to. The Catholic Church’s conservatism as a brand prevents it from exercising many media options another brand might.

The Episcopal Church - here for sinners not saints
The Episcopal Church is a very liberal brand compared to the Catholic Church. Its ideology was beautifully brought to life by an award winning campaign by Fallon McElligot in the mid eighties which some of you may have seen.

The campaign featured many different ads. One of them shows a picture of Christ nailed to the Cross and said “we welcome people with piercings.”

Another showed a picture of Henry VIII with a headline that read “In a Church started by a man with 6 wives, forgiveness goes without saying.”

What the Episcopal Church tries to do as a brand is preach “forgiveness”, and “compassion”. Its premise, “that all of us are in need of the redemption that only Christ can provide” gives the brand a “non-judgemental” quality that greatly broadens the media options at its disposal.

Simply by virtue of the stance the brand has chosen to adopt, it can use media – including all the options detailed above – that the Catholic Church cannot. Its justification is simple – as a brand it’s not here for saints but for sinners – and they are to be found in media more conservative brands like the Catholic Church will invariably frown upon.

Your media communicates more about your brand than just its values
It can sometimes communicate your brand’s fundamental beliefs in business and strategy.

Let’s take a brand like Google for example. Let’s say Google suddenly decides to launch a mainstream advertising campaign for its products on television. What does it say about the brand...that it has departed from one of its core beliefs...that the future of advertising is not in the area of contextual relevance any more? Such a move would belie and go against everything Google has stood for so far and the brand would suffer as a result.

Google hasn’t decided to launch a mainstream campaign just yet (thank goodness!) but Yahoo has.

Yahoo’s new campaign “Yahoo it’s You” is all about the personalisation options the brand offers users in terms of its portal and search. The trouble with this campaign is that the media it uses is predominantly offline (ie television, print and outdoor). We all know Yahoo is trying to buy itself out of trouble. But I don’t think they’ve thought about the message their decision to go mainstream in such a big way will send to the market about their brand.

The message it sends about Yahoo the way I see it is this – the brand does not believe that it (and therefore any other brand) can market itself successfully using the online space alone. It therefore needs mainstream television, print and outdoor.

There are two issues with this stance:

One – in a time when more dynamic brands are walking away from mainstream channels to more targeted and efficient ones, Yahoo is doing the opposite. In the process, it is depositioning itself as far as its dynamism and progressiveness as a marketer is concerned.

Two – in a time when the brand’s sales people are trying to convince marketers of the value of putting more money into the online channel - Yahoo itself is doing the exact opposite! It can't be easy for Yahoo's sales people to sell on the platform the brand has chosen to adopt.

Yahoo's approach could have been a lot cleverer in terms of reaching out to its audience. By developing a traditional, straightforward and somewhat uninspired marketing approach it raises questions on its direction and the strength and dynamism of its leadership. All through the media channels it has chosen for itself.

Choose your media carefully - it says more about you than you can imagine
The media choices you make for a brand communicate how it thinks as well as the key values it epitomises. These media choices also cue the strength of an organisation's leadership, its belief in its direction as well as the clarity with which it has defined it.

When you use a particular media to say something about your brand - the interesting thing is this - it does!

Should a brand listen to its customers?

It’s what all brand gurus advocate - or most of them anyway.

It’s an idea, the usefulness of which, when taken beyond a limit though – I must admit I question. The reason – a lot of brands have found themselves in trouble because they were listening when they should have been envisioning instead.

Coke was one such brand. They listened to what people said about Old Coke and their strategy was …well…to take it off the shelf. A “classic” blunder endlessly documented.

Ogilvy makes a good point on listenership – the context being research. “It’s a lamppost” he says, “use it for illumination – the way an intelligent man does – not for support – the way a drunk might.”

We all use research to base decisions. Nothing wrong with that. But sometimes what we as brand marketers think is more important than what consumers’ do.

Henry Ford summed it up best when he said “If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse!”

If Youth is an Attitude, Here’s a Brand with Plenty. Evian – the New Christmas Edition Bottle with Paul Smith.

Paul Smith for Evian - Click here for this week’s top video clips
I am always excited by a good brand idea and I think this is definitely one.

Evian has tied up with British fashion designer Paul Smith who has designed a special edition bottle for the brand which goes on sale in November just in time for Christmas.

What I like about the idea (and it is clear when you watch the video) is its tight fit with the brand and what it’s all about – youth.

Firstly the fact that Evian has used an older person like Paul to deliver its proposition of youth is both fresh and inspiring. As Paul says “youth is not a question of age, but a question of attitude.”

Most creative people are child like (they need to be to break new ground) and Paul is clearly no exception. With a studio full of toys and other bright and colourful items, Paul comes across as a credible and natural endorsement for the brand and its proposition of youth.

Finally as a successful, but also convivial fashion designer he is an effective brand spokesperson - likely to easily connect with Evian’s audience.

“Life is about living young and enjoying yourself everyday” Paul says. Who would want to disagree with that?

What Makes a Social Media Strategy Work?

In my last post (below), I discussed the 4 levels at which companies are using social media. In this post, I look at another key result of my study - the 5 key things a firm needs to get right if its social media strategy is to work.

1. Clarity of Intent. For a firm’s foray into social media to be successful, its intent in terms of what it seeks to achieve from the exercise must be clear. In the case of Ford (the example I used in my last post below), the objective is very simple – position the company as open, honest and transparent. With Zappos they’re clear too – they want to be selling culture not shoes. Kickstarting the exercise with clarity of such nature is key to success.

2. Clear understanding of the medium. Social media works differently to traditional media. There are some things a brand can and can’t do. It would be a mistake for example to sell overtly on certain social media territories like Facebook. Moderation of content while always tempting is frowned upon by communities. They’re there to give opinions – brands that are afraid to accept them shouldn’t play in the space.

3. Adequate resource investment. Social media strategies require resource to manage them. People will comment, and brands will need to respond appropriately. Resource needs to be in place to allow them to do so. Nothing is worse than an untended initiative. And there are many of them by way of corporate pages on sites like Facebook. They get no traffic and damage rather than enhance the profiles of brands.

4. Dynamic not static engagement approach. It’s good to go in with a plan. It’s also good to keep the plan fluid. This can make the approach consistent but also responsive. Things change very quickly in the digital world. One needs to keep a close eye on change to ensure one’s strategy is always dynamic – and aligned to shifts that may be taking place in the market.

5. Management commitment. The last point that’s important for companies, once they launch themselves into the social media arena is to stay committed to it. Many brands, particularly if their strategy is designed to operate at a corporate level receive initial flak based on perception or earlier decisions. We are seeing that happen to the Pope in a big way for example. It’s all a natural process of catharsis. If a brand is serious about its social media strategy it will learn from it. And if it does, it will use the knowledge gained to improve the way it conducts its operations.

Social media is here to stay
It will soon, if it doesn’t already, exert an influence on the way your company is perceived at a corporate, brand, product or service level. By understanding how social media works (see previous post below), companies can harness its might to develop a powerful strategy to build a clear advantage for themselves over competitors.

The Four Key Ways Companies are using Social Media

There is more being written about social media than any other marketing topic today. And with good reason - social media has turned out to be a powerful determinant of a brand’s success.

Before a company ventures into the social media arena however it pays to take a look at what others before them have done in the space. Recently I did a study on the social media strategies of organisations and found they were using them at four key levels:

1. Corporate
2. Brand
3. Product
4. Service

Corporate
Ford Motors – open, honest and transparent
Ford Motors is one company that uses social media – and effectively too – at a corporate level. Ford’s objective is clear – it wants to be seen as “open, honest and transparent.”

As Scott Monty, Head of Social Media at Ford said in an interview with Freshnetworks Blog “we share with the public anything on our intranet that is not commercially sensitive.”

He isn’t kidding. The company is an open book and shares everything from investments the company will make to redundancies of staff and dealers that may be coming.

Ford has also set up a website called ford.digitalsnippets.com where bloggers and anyone writing about Ford can download digital assets and use them at will on their sites. Ford has realised an important point:

In social media, brands that win will not be those who write about themselves but those who get others to do so.

The multiplier effect has never been more important.

Zappos – people buy culture before they buy shoes
Another company that uses social media at a corporate level very well is online shoe company - Zappos. The CEO of Zappos, Tony Hsieh is second only to Obama in terms of following on Twitter. It isn’t hard to see why. He is insightful, inspirational and sometimes just downright funny.

Some of his posts - “Going fishing for first time with board member. Think they may be taking this thing of teaching a man to fish too seriously

Or “I try not to carry grudges, but I’ve decided I’m no longer going to be friends with the guy who invented 6am flights.”

Tony uses his Twitter feed to evangelise the coporate culture at Zappos – realising it is unique and what puts Zappos ahead. The company will give new staff members $1000 to leave after their first week of work for example if they decide they won’t be able to accept the culture or live up to its high service standard policies.

Their charter - “delivering WOW through service”, “being humble” and “creating fun - and a little weirdness.” You can check out Tony Hsieh’s Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/zappos

Brand
At a brand level there is no dearth of companies who have used social media well.

Burger King – cheeky and irreverent
One campaign that is fantastic is Burger King Sacrifice. Burger King asked fans a simple question – did they love the Whopper more than they loved their friends? And if so would they delete a friend for a free Whopper voucher?

Well many did. To the extent that Facebook stopped the campaign. The bloggers went to work and the rest as they was history. Burger King established itself unequivocally as the most cheeky and irreverent brand in the burger industry – which differentiates it nicely against its competition.

Gillette uART – making shaving fun
Another great example of social media use at a brand level is Gillette. Gillette came up with this cool iPhone app called uART that allows you to put a beard on a friends picture, and then using your finger as a razor - shave it off. You can save and share the look which is often hilarious.

It sounds like fun – but in my view the intent could never be more serious.

Gillette is a brand that to younger audiences could easily be seen as “their dads’!” Gillette uART is a great way for the brand to connect with these audiences and be fresh, relevant and appealing to them.

The Pope – now also on Facebook
The Pope is also using social media at a brand level – a few months ago the Pope launched his page on Facebook. The Pope is using social media to understand brand momentum and customer sentiment towards the Church.

It didn’t take him long to find out – fans were vocal with their points of view – as you’d expect them be and attacked the Pope on the Church’s stance on a number of issues- the use (or non use) of condoms, gay marriages, the policy of male only Priests, their vows of celibacy – the list goes on.

From the comments, the Pope will have understood by now the Church has an issue – one of both momentum and relevance – both of which are seen in dwindling attendances at Sunday service.

The move to establish a presence a Facebook is a brave one however. This awareness can result in a strategy – a change – that can bring the sheep back to the shepherd.

Product
The third level at which people are using social media is product.

Volvo XC 60 – taking the car and the inspiration to the people
In a recent campaign out of New York for example Volvo set up a You Tube channel for the launch of the new XC 60. The channel featured a number of videos including two powerful ones from designers Jonathan Dissley and Steve Mattin – who describe the inspiration behind their design of the car.

In addition to a presence on You Tube the brand also had images of the car distributed on Flickr and information made available to owners of key auto blogs.

Social media at a product level – infinitely more is possible
Marketers can use social media at a product level in many interesting ways. Besides using it to talk about products, they could use it to develop new ones as well. Concepts can be tested ahead of launch and a decision as to whether they should be progressed or not taken based on feedback from the people.

Google frequently adopts this approach. Most of the products it launches (including Chrome) are available in beta form. Then, based on user experience they are modified – launched or shelved. This is a clever strategy as people’s expectations of a beta product are usually lower – making them less critical of it – which gives marketers more time to get it right.


Service
Comcast – using customers to provide the answers
Finally companies are also using social media at a service level. Comcast for example, a Pay TV and Internet service provider uses Twitter to respond to customers’ questions or address feedback or a negative comment.

What I noticed as I went through the feeds was that often other customers would jump in and provide a solution to questions customers posted. What a great way to amplify the size of your customer service cell – at no additional cost.

Four key levels – which one for you
There are four key levels at which companies are using social media. Which level is right for you? It depends on your objectives. You can use social media at a single, multiple or at indeed all levels depending on the challenges facing your brand or the opportunities you’d like to take advantage off.

The Challenge facing GM

Earlier this week, GM launched a new TV commercial featuring Ed Whiteacre the new Chairman as its spokesperson.



In the commercial, Ed launches GM’s new 60 day satisfaction guarantee programme and makes reference to how he thought there were issues with GM too – before he joined the company.

If you go to the company’s website, the story is continued and you can read about how GM is reinventing itself.

But that’s where the problem lies. It doesn’t appear to be.

On the website, Chairman Whiteacre talks about how the first step on the road to revival is about “people taking pride in their jobs.” He spends a whole three minutes talking about how people at GM should be so lucky they have a job in these times and can put food on their table. He goes on to say that GM is a great company and has always had great products – it just wasn’t able to communicate that fact properly to the public.

The problem with GM’s response
It doesn’t address the key issue – the resentment American taxpayers feel towards the company for using its money to prop them up (67% of Americans oppose the bail out according to the Rasmussen Reports as featured on Liveleak.com June 2009).

It doesn’t acknowledge the fact that many people in America believe it was inept management and not economic circumstance that brought GM to bankruptcy.

It suggests GM will keep doing what it always has (after all according to Chairman Whiteacre the company makes great products it just hasn’t communicated that properly to the public).

Finally, GM’s response doesn’t detail a list of concrete steps that the company will undertake to ensure it never finds itself in the same mess again.

How GM should be responding
As a first step, the company should acknowledge its failure so it can move past it.

A simple commitment to developing a strategy that ensures it will never rely on public money again could do a lot to rebuild missing trust and credibility.

Once this is done, and the slate wiped clean, the company needs to develop a clear strategy for the future. It needs to define who it is, who it might be, what it will stand for and most importantly how it will compete.

In short, it needs to define its position and stance to the market.

The problem with GM today
It stands for so many things, it stands for nothing.

On the other hand, smaller but infinitely more vibrant competitive brands like Mercedes and BMW have adopted positions that are extremely distinct and have stayed focused to the concepts that have made them successful.

Mercedes for example is about engineering – it always has been; BMW – is about sheer driving pleasure. Both brands operate in the luxury car market which they have stayed resolutely focused on.

GM of course is a corporate brand. However, it still needs to find a position, one resonant with its audience and adopt it long term. More importantly, once this position has been adopted, it needs to create an enabling infrastructure that will allow the brand to live it.

Let’s say for example GM decides that its focus will be on making “the world’s best designed cars” (it’s not a goal that can’t be achieved – Apple did it in computers, portable music devices and phones). Its next step will be to look at its capabilities and figure out if they’re adequate or not to achieve the goal in question.

It’s at this time that the real work in activating the brand will begin. To ensure an enabling infrastructure in line with the vision, all aspects of GM’s operations will need to be reviewed – everything from people, process, partnerships, performance and more.

I’d be surprised if GM would not have to let go of a number of people to achieve a vision like the one above. It’s usually the case when a new direction for any business is set.

Therein the brand will face its biggest conundrum - and its solution – Government - could become its problem. That’s because the Government bailout was designed to keep people at GM in jobs. It wasn’t designed to make GM more efficient. So here we have a classic case of competing priorities – Government wants GM to improve but is unwittingly working against this happening. GM wants GM to improve but has to make this happen with one of its key sponsors (Government) constantly working against it (Governments do that – its part of their DNA)!

A classic challenge for a CEO
Not one that can’t be overcome, but definitely one that requires managerial skills of the highest kind.

Ever wondered why Ed Whiteacre is paid so much? It’s to solve problems like this one; problems where GM must align brand with business to achieve success. It’s a problem not unique to GM but all brands.

For GM, the battle for revival has only just begun. The company has a new CEO, they have the cash they need to make a fresh start, all they now need is a bit of impetus to gaze hard into their brand, their direction - and ensure it doesn’t take them where it did before!

Frog Prince finally makes good. A well thought through campaign from an ad agency - finally!

Every once in a while someone will do an ad campaign that's a bit more than one.

The Prince of Wales is the latest culprit. Recently he launched the Prince of Wales Rainforest project with a 60 second TV commercial that featured - in addition to himself - a raft of stars (list by no means exhaustive) who included Daniel Craig, the Dalai Lama, Harrison Ford, the two princes William and Harry and Pele.

The ad is well done - click "Video" on the side bar widget to take a look. It uses celebrities to draw attention to the issue but not in a way that takes away from it. The frog is an icon of the rainforest and the campaign uses it to create a visual burr - a property that lends itself to endless possibilities to engage.

Already the possibilities have started pouring in. What shall we name the frog is the first question? Richard Branson thinks Prince Charming, some one else is convinced he should be called Clarence. There's already an assumption the frog is male - but no-one's confirmed that yet. The endless debate and fun - despite this being a serious topic - that one can have with this campaign lends itself very nicely to social media - so key to achieving publicity for any brand these days.

Fun apart - what makes this campaign special?
In my view, it's the thinking that's gone into it.

Driving awareness alone of an issue is rarely enough to solve it. Too many ad campaigns do just that. You see it all the time - at Cannes and the other creative award shows. No to be effective, ad campaigns and the people who create them have to think through the entire solution. One that drives the ultimate end objective. Which in this case is a stop to deforestation of the rainforests.

The Prince of Wales campaign is trying to do just this. The ads are only one part of the campaign and set the scene for debate inviting public participation. What the campaign also does though is present the public with a very real and tangible suite of solutions that can solve the problem of deforestation. These solutions are creative but have little to do with advertising.

Let me explain. One of the key problems with deforestation is the fact that it's carried out in the name of cattle ranching and agriculture by the locals of countries like Brazil in whose hands the destiny of the rainforests are.

Try telling a landless farmer who has to feed his family that he should do his bit for the planet. He's just trying to do his bit to stay alive.

It's not just the farmers. Most of the countries who hold rainforest assets also have very high foreign debt levels. This leads them to look for economic growth at any cost - even if environmentally unsustainable in the long term.

The poverty of their people (31% of Brazil's population live under the poverty line) make it difficult for them to empathise with global sentiment and hence pressure their Governments to make change of any sort. And the steady demand for beef at lower prices ensures cattle ranchers have plenty of reason to keep expanding their herds at the cost of the forests.

What the Prince's Trust has done is not only understood the real issues facing the rainforests, it has developed a suite of very real and practical solutions that it presents to the public.

These include Western countries PAYING poorer countries for every acre of forest they keep virgin, educating farmers on more efficient farming techniques so less land needs to be cleared for agriculture, working with Governments to develop solutions to landless labour - another key reason individuals in these countries take to the forest to try and eke out a livelihood - and also raising the issue of third world debt and its cancellation - a move that could give these struggling countries - and the world - the reprieves they both need.

None of these initiatives can come to fruition unless supported by citizens of the developed world - they are the ones who hold the real answer to the problem. By showing the public the path that can exist, and gaining their active support for the initiatives proposed - they give Government an impetus - a reason to be brave and support solutions free of political considerations.

And that is key to creating a real, effective an lasting response to the problem.

A campaign like this - we need more off
Our industry has in recent times enslaved itself to awards and quarterly results rather than the way we are able to contribute in a more meaningful way to the world and society.

This has made the public question the role of advertising and become increasingly cynical towards it. It's a trend we need to reverse - and it's campaigns like the Prince of Wales Rainforest initiative that can help us do that.

Good ad or what?

Saw this ad for NTUC Income on a bus shelter a few days ago and couldn't help snapping it up. What I like about the ad and the campaign (there are a few executions in it) is the fact that it's interest that's real and not conjured.

The agency isn't working too hard - but yet it is if you know what I mean:)! They've identified a brand truth that's real, interesting, unique and differentiating - and gone to town with it.

This truth is that NTUC Income is a co-operative unlike AXA, Aviva or other brands. They can credibly therefore talk about ideas like putting 'people before profits' (which they do in the ad - it's one of their policies!) and acting in the true interests of their customers.

Earlier in the year during the financial crisis NTUC Income did another good ad. The line - "In times of uncertainty, the best place to be is home.' The ad leveraged off the "Singaporeaness" of NTUC Income - a big draw card at a time when foreign companies across were collapsing.

They don't seem to spend much money but seem to be getting traction that's well above average for their brand. I am not sure who did the ad campaign - whoever did it though - it's great work.

The importance of influencers over consumers

From what I’ve observed, success in advertising comes often not by talking to consumers but a much smaller set of people - influencers.

Take the guitar industry for example. Brands like Hofner and Gibson. What’s key to their success is the number of professional musicians who buy into their marketing and as a consequence their products. That’s because regular consumers are constantly watching to see what brands they use and choose theirs accordingly too.

Both Hofner and Gibson have recognised the importance of this group and take pains to enfranchise and persuade them of the quality of their products. Hofner for example is used commonly by Chris Rea and Mick Box, guitarist for rock and Uriah Heep. Eric Clapton’s choice is Gibson as is John Fogerty’s and David Gilmour’s (of Pink Floyd).

Both brands leverage the use. Gibson posts the names of musicians seen using its guitars on Wikipedia. Hofner does the same on its website.

What’s the point of this observation? Brands spend millions talking to consumers when really they should be investing the money in creating relationships with influencers. They hold the key to persuasion and long term commercial success.

Nike – the game has changed
Take Nike as another example. Nike built its success using influencers – emerging and established sportsmen and sportswomen.

This approach was extremely powerful but has become less so in recent times.

The reason for this is the Nike brand has faced a whole new set of challenges; the use of sweatshops in Asia for example and in more recent times the design appetites of new generations which are a lot different to older ones.

The issue – the influencer set for Nike has changed. While sportsmen and sportswomen still give the brand the credibility it wants in the area of performance they don’t address the brand’s new challenges.

To combat the “sweatshop” issue, Nike should have engaged with individuals in whom social activism was alive and involved them in a strategy to ensure its activities were audited and above board. From a design perspective it would do well to explore relationships with personalities who actively contribute to youth culture – artists, poets, painters – and the like.


Influencer marketing - a two way street
Developing an effective influencer strategy will always be a two way rather than a one way street.

Unlike traditional advertising where a consumer is told why they should buy a particular brand or product, with influencers the goal is to get their feedback as well. And once it’s received, to use it to adapt and improve their products so they meet the needs of user groups.

In this way products are continually evolved and their relevance to audience groups always high.

Influencers exist in every category
Some influencing groups are obvious and have indeed been used for years by brands. In the dental care category for example, dentists have always played a key role in the success of brands. Both Colgate and Crest in the US have leveraged this group to successfully establish themselves in the minds of consumers.

However influencing groups have been more creatively selected and used in other categories.

There was a wonderful campaign done by Australian supermarket Woolworths for example a few years ago. The goal of the campaign was to reinforce Woolworth’s position as the best place for ‘quality fresh produce.’

The campaign used an orange farmer as its spokesperson. The script: Farmer: “I always buy my apples from Woolworth’s. Because I know what I have to go through to sell my oranges to them.”

What a great way to create an influencer that didn’t previously exist and use them creatively to achieve a positive brand outcome.

Influencers can be ordinary consumers or professionals
It’s all dependent on the category.

Say you’re marketing a brand of laptop. What do you do when you buy a laptop? A lot of people consult the IT manager at their place of work. Creating a strong franchise with IT personnel even in the case of the consumer market is key to a brand’s success in this category therefore.

It’s one of the reasons why HP is so successful today. IT people swear by the brand like in the old days they used to swear by IBM. It works. More people buy HP today than any other brand of computer.

Say you’re selling baby powder or baby lotion however. What is the category dynamic? Young mums tend to ask other mums about the best products to use. The key influencers in this category are mums themselves therefore – one’s who are a bit more experienced than others. They are the one’s brand’s need to reach out to and engage with to ensure their products are successful.

Influencer groups differ in every category
The first step in developing an effective marketing campaign therefore is to understand who the influencers are. Once this has been done, a strategy to engage with the influencers – in a way that is interactive, relationship and dialogue based – needs to be developed.