Zoomerang will be publishing a study next week which reveals that even though Web 2.0 has hogged the business headlines (for what, a couple of years now?) 8 out of 10 marketing professionals still are not even familiar with the term. At the other extreme, one third of those who have latched onto what is going on are using web 2.0 approaches in their marketing, and most of those (70%) are having success.
Assuming the study is correct, what does this say about how in touch with their markets most marketers are? Marketing is all about understanding consumers and reacting to (if not anticipating) shifts in interests, attitudes, values, and behaviours. It is hard to imagine that web 2.0 (which, despite what its detractors may say, heralds a megashift in consumer culture) has gone unnoticed by the hordes of marketing wonks, their agencies, researchers, and advisors. I could accept that they don't really understand it or that they dismiss it as a temporary anomaly -- but that they have never even heard the term web 2.0 is just scary.
Corporations (particularly of the kind reviled by The Cluetrain Manifesto) are notoriously slow to catch on to or care about what their customers or potential customers are doing. You sort of expect that level of indifference in the folks in Finance or Production or even in the boardroom. But if anyone should be intimately in touch with the chaotic changes in the consumer world, it's the Marketing people. Maybe there's a new digital divide to think about: those who care about what is going on in their professional area have tuned into digital media; those who do not are still waiting for the memo from corporate.
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Friday, November 17, 2006
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thinking outside the idiot box
The current buzz about IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) makes me realize how rapidly some industries are evolving, and how relatively slowly the marketing profession is responding.
In 1998 I engineered an invitation to the Royal Television Society conference, the biennial Cambridge gathering of 200 of UK television’s elite. Much of the conference was spent in presentations, planning, and self-congratulation on the recent coverage of Princess Diana’s funeral. The only two presentations that still stick with me were a history professor’s singularly unpopular assertion that TV was creating news rather than simply reporting it (much hissing from the audience), and a demonstration of WebTV by the now CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer.
At the time a mere VP, Steve Ballmer was actually heckled. From the audience I heard all the superior snickers of disbelief and the whispered dismissals of the very notion that television might become interactive. The leading decision-makers in the industry were so conditioned by their past experiences of television that they could not conceive that any significant change might be possible, let alone desirable.
I had seen WebTV unveiled a couple of years earlier in New York, before Microsoft acquired it, and had been captivated by the notion that you no longer needed a computer to surf the web. In those days I was all about convergence, and would assail anyone who would listen with my predictions that TV, the web, and mobile telephony would collide and facilitate revolutions in entertainment, communication, and education. Of course this was not original thinking – lots of people were working toward achieving that convergence, and it was an uphill battle.
One of the people at the conference who I tried in vain to convert was a producer of Channel 4’s The Big Breakfast, whose resolute position was something like: “The internet is rubbish. I’d rather have my children watching TV than wasting their time online. You can’t get more educational than a television documentary.” The Big Breakfast was at least innocent, entertaining, predictable, and vaguely informative. But, to my mind, it seemed more worthy of the “rubbish” label than much of what was available online.
The singular lack of vision, with an edge of defensiveness, demonstrated among the television cognoscenti at the time was frustrating, but not unexpected. Even highly intelligent and wonderfully creative people have their limiting horizons and their comfort zones.
What is remarkable to me is not so much that attitudes and behaviors have changed, but how rapidly they changed. The technologies have advanced significantly in the past decade, but so too has our willingness to use them. Our notion of what a computer is has dissolved – it is no longer a grey box under a desk connected to the world with cables, but a palm-sized clam-shell on our hip. It has become almost second nature to take and send images and video using a mobile phone. E-commerce is rapidly going mobile – in Japan you can rent a car, or even get a Coke from a vending machine, by pushing a few buttons on your phone. Bloggers proliferate, entertainment and commerce exploit new media, and news coverage and commentary have decentralized and gone real-time. Now, with the imminent arrival of the millions of channels made available by IPTV, convergence is almost total.
But what of marketing? Where are the revolutions in thinking, the exploitation of new possibilities, the creativity and experimentation? I still work with companies, some with seemingly limitless resources, who are slowly “putting their ads online” and trying to catch up with a paradigm that now belongs in the last century. It baffles me why we in marketing are so slow to evolve. Our role in training is to prepare brands for the future, yet we cling tenaciously to the past.
Is it because marketers define themselves too narrowly, and think of themselves in “activity” terms instead of in “outcome” terms? Or is it because companies don’t consider the value that marketing can bring to the organization is sufficient to justify the potential cost of innovation? Or is it, perhaps, that the current generation of management is still conditioned by its own past experiences, and is not capable of seeing that marketing does not have to be that way? I know that we have only recently accepted the benefits of online engagement, but perhaps we should continue to peer over the horizon instead of settling into a new zone of comfort?
If you did not have a website or the capacity to run TV or print ads, but you and all your target customers had web-enabled mobile camera-phones, how would you exploit the technology more efficiently and effectively help build your brands and grow revenues?
In 1998 I engineered an invitation to the Royal Television Society conference, the biennial Cambridge gathering of 200 of UK television’s elite. Much of the conference was spent in presentations, planning, and self-congratulation on the recent coverage of Princess Diana’s funeral. The only two presentations that still stick with me were a history professor’s singularly unpopular assertion that TV was creating news rather than simply reporting it (much hissing from the audience), and a demonstration of WebTV by the now CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer.
At the time a mere VP, Steve Ballmer was actually heckled. From the audience I heard all the superior snickers of disbelief and the whispered dismissals of the very notion that television might become interactive. The leading decision-makers in the industry were so conditioned by their past experiences of television that they could not conceive that any significant change might be possible, let alone desirable.
I had seen WebTV unveiled a couple of years earlier in New York, before Microsoft acquired it, and had been captivated by the notion that you no longer needed a computer to surf the web. In those days I was all about convergence, and would assail anyone who would listen with my predictions that TV, the web, and mobile telephony would collide and facilitate revolutions in entertainment, communication, and education. Of course this was not original thinking – lots of people were working toward achieving that convergence, and it was an uphill battle.
One of the people at the conference who I tried in vain to convert was a producer of Channel 4’s The Big Breakfast, whose resolute position was something like: “The internet is rubbish. I’d rather have my children watching TV than wasting their time online. You can’t get more educational than a television documentary.” The Big Breakfast was at least innocent, entertaining, predictable, and vaguely informative. But, to my mind, it seemed more worthy of the “rubbish” label than much of what was available online.
The singular lack of vision, with an edge of defensiveness, demonstrated among the television cognoscenti at the time was frustrating, but not unexpected. Even highly intelligent and wonderfully creative people have their limiting horizons and their comfort zones.
What is remarkable to me is not so much that attitudes and behaviors have changed, but how rapidly they changed. The technologies have advanced significantly in the past decade, but so too has our willingness to use them. Our notion of what a computer is has dissolved – it is no longer a grey box under a desk connected to the world with cables, but a palm-sized clam-shell on our hip. It has become almost second nature to take and send images and video using a mobile phone. E-commerce is rapidly going mobile – in Japan you can rent a car, or even get a Coke from a vending machine, by pushing a few buttons on your phone. Bloggers proliferate, entertainment and commerce exploit new media, and news coverage and commentary have decentralized and gone real-time. Now, with the imminent arrival of the millions of channels made available by IPTV, convergence is almost total.
But what of marketing? Where are the revolutions in thinking, the exploitation of new possibilities, the creativity and experimentation? I still work with companies, some with seemingly limitless resources, who are slowly “putting their ads online” and trying to catch up with a paradigm that now belongs in the last century. It baffles me why we in marketing are so slow to evolve. Our role in training is to prepare brands for the future, yet we cling tenaciously to the past.
Is it because marketers define themselves too narrowly, and think of themselves in “activity” terms instead of in “outcome” terms? Or is it because companies don’t consider the value that marketing can bring to the organization is sufficient to justify the potential cost of innovation? Or is it, perhaps, that the current generation of management is still conditioned by its own past experiences, and is not capable of seeing that marketing does not have to be that way? I know that we have only recently accepted the benefits of online engagement, but perhaps we should continue to peer over the horizon instead of settling into a new zone of comfort?
If you did not have a website or the capacity to run TV or print ads, but you and all your target customers had web-enabled mobile camera-phones, how would you exploit the technology more efficiently and effectively help build your brands and grow revenues?
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
Paid product placement in rap lyrics
The concept of schizophrenic branding is not new. Marketers have always tried to target different messages to different markets using selective media. Of course there is always the fear that one positioning might undermine another. So how do you position luxury brands to the lavish-lifestyle hip-hop generation without turning off your primary staid and conservative markets? Through surgical internet targeting? Too technical. Through product placement? Not repetitive enough. How about through brand name placement in hip hop lyrics? I’m lovin’ it.
Great rockers of old regarded the use of their music in commercials as a sell-out or a breach of artistic integrity, and they stuck with it, at least till they turned fifty and the royalties started drying up. That’s when the Clash backs Pontiac, the Who hypes Nissan, and Led Zeppelin defibrillates Cadillac. Sell out or not, it works.
Rappers have no such qualms. In fact, the bling bling image is all about conspicuous association with elitist brands. Since 50 Cent dropped Courvoisier and Dom Perignon into his lyrics, they have gained recognition and street cred with the hip-hop crowd. Courvoisier has gone from “Huh? Say what?” to simply “Cou.” Jay-Z has had a similar effect on Bentley’s image and recognition, though fewer fans can afford to splash out on one of those. These were brands firmly associated with boring old f@rts, pretentious but effete jet-setters, and industrialists from nations beyond the scope of most peoples’ geographic competencies. Suddenly they are hip, and there is absolutely no danger that their “traditional” markets will ever find out. And it cost the marketing department nothing.
Enter McDonalds, stage right.
Enthralled with the apparent success of their “I’m lovin’ it” campaign, McDonalds has decided that some of that Cou effect would do the Big Mac a power of good. Rappers don’t sing about Big Macs without a little prodding, because a burger does not have the same fabulous decadent cachet as Dom Perignon. So McDonalds is offering a bribe: mention our product in your lyrics, and we’ll give you a kickback for any airtime you get. We’re talking significant money, enough to buy you two Big Macs for every time the product-placement song gets played. If I am not mistaken, that’s a lot more than the record company pays. Five bucks a spin? I’m in.
But will it be a sell out to commercialism? Will fans lose respect for the performers if they know the deal (and they will know the deal)? Will they reject the products pushed, or will they start eating more burgers with their Courvoisier? Now there’s an interesting research project.
Great rockers of old regarded the use of their music in commercials as a sell-out or a breach of artistic integrity, and they stuck with it, at least till they turned fifty and the royalties started drying up. That’s when the Clash backs Pontiac, the Who hypes Nissan, and Led Zeppelin defibrillates Cadillac. Sell out or not, it works.
Rappers have no such qualms. In fact, the bling bling image is all about conspicuous association with elitist brands. Since 50 Cent dropped Courvoisier and Dom Perignon into his lyrics, they have gained recognition and street cred with the hip-hop crowd. Courvoisier has gone from “Huh? Say what?” to simply “Cou.” Jay-Z has had a similar effect on Bentley’s image and recognition, though fewer fans can afford to splash out on one of those. These were brands firmly associated with boring old f@rts, pretentious but effete jet-setters, and industrialists from nations beyond the scope of most peoples’ geographic competencies. Suddenly they are hip, and there is absolutely no danger that their “traditional” markets will ever find out. And it cost the marketing department nothing.
Enter McDonalds, stage right.
Enthralled with the apparent success of their “I’m lovin’ it” campaign, McDonalds has decided that some of that Cou effect would do the Big Mac a power of good. Rappers don’t sing about Big Macs without a little prodding, because a burger does not have the same fabulous decadent cachet as Dom Perignon. So McDonalds is offering a bribe: mention our product in your lyrics, and we’ll give you a kickback for any airtime you get. We’re talking significant money, enough to buy you two Big Macs for every time the product-placement song gets played. If I am not mistaken, that’s a lot more than the record company pays. Five bucks a spin? I’m in.
But will it be a sell out to commercialism? Will fans lose respect for the performers if they know the deal (and they will know the deal)? Will they reject the products pushed, or will they start eating more burgers with their Courvoisier? Now there’s an interesting research project.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Give your supermarket the finger
In September last year I suggested the JIT lattes concept: service businesses like fast-food outlets and coffee shops provide regular customers with RFID cards, so that on walking in the store the kitchen can be notified to prepare their normal order and shave minutes off the time it takes to process each customer.
But that means customers have to carry more plastic in their wallets. You get around this by ditching the card and injecting the RFID chip under the skin of the customer, as some European beach clubs are doing to help members leave their wallets back in the room-safe. But your average store customer is not yet ready to implant a bunch of Cyborgian chips in their bicep. Along comes biometrics, allowing German shoppers to now use their fingerprint to pay for groceries.
It's early days, of course, and privacy issues abound. I can see the CSI team earnestly looking to identify a partial print from a crime scene: "No hits on AFIS. Better try WalMart."
Will people who would go to court to prevent the government from getting their fingerprints on file be willing to let their supermarket have a record of their fingerprints? Of course they will. If e-commerce has taught us anything about consumers, it's that convenience beats out privacy and security every time. It's your finger -- don't leave home without it.
But that means customers have to carry more plastic in their wallets. You get around this by ditching the card and injecting the RFID chip under the skin of the customer, as some European beach clubs are doing to help members leave their wallets back in the room-safe. But your average store customer is not yet ready to implant a bunch of Cyborgian chips in their bicep. Along comes biometrics, allowing German shoppers to now use their fingerprint to pay for groceries.
It's early days, of course, and privacy issues abound. I can see the CSI team earnestly looking to identify a partial print from a crime scene: "No hits on AFIS. Better try WalMart."
Will people who would go to court to prevent the government from getting their fingerprints on file be willing to let their supermarket have a record of their fingerprints? Of course they will. If e-commerce has taught us anything about consumers, it's that convenience beats out privacy and security every time. It's your finger -- don't leave home without it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)