How many fans does your brand 'really' have on Facebook?

Marketers have started to use 'contests' and 'promotions' in an increasingly frequent way to build fans for their brands on Facebook.

What they may be doing (and expensively too), is creating a collection of 'contest enthusiasts' rather a database of fans - in the true sense of the word.

Genuine fans have a high level of 'emotion' and 'empathy' to a brand and are unswerving in their loyalty to it.

However most contests and promotions are not designed to attract such fans (brand enthusiasts or advocates in essence) but a much more mainstream set of customers - including those who belong to competitors.

The result is that many brands have ended up with 'so called' fans as opposed to 'genuine' ones.

What do you do if you've built your fan base using contests and promotions? 
The first step is to look at how you might segment it to understand who on your database is actually a fan and who is not.

A good way to do this is to use the principle of NPS (Net Promoter Score). NPS (www.netpromoter.com), was developed by loyalty guru Frederick Reicheld and is now a trademark owned by Bain Consulting and Satmetrix Systems.

What NPS helps you to do is break down your customers into 3 key segments - Promoters, Detractors and Passives - all by their responses to one key question 'would you recommend this brand to a family member or friend?'

By breaking down your fan base in this way, NPS helps you to understand the emotional traction of your brand - its pull and strength in relation to your fans on Facebook.

What's the benefit of undertaking this exercise?
It can help you get a more genuine, down to earth picture of the emotional strength of your brand as it relates to your fans on Facebook.

It can help you to figure out who's a fan, whose not - and start to look at your strategy for Facebook with a  much clearer and better defined set of objectives.

And finally, when you segment your fan base this way, and apply the principle of NPS at regular intervals, you start to see whether the initiatives you're undertaking on Facebook are having the desired impact and shifting the needle when it comes to your fans - or not.

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!”