Revolutionary Measures

Brand safety in the age of Trump

Marketers are all aware of the impact of social media on brand reputation. Issues can quickly go viral as consumers share complaints on Facebook and Twitter – and with the press continually monitoring for social stories, before you know it you are on the BBC News or the front page of a newspaper website.

man couple people woman

Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

However, what has changed in the last twelve months or so has been the impact of celebrities, including Donald Trump, on brand safety. A tweet from the US President complaining about a company can damage reputation, and even survival. Take the case of Chinese telecoms equipment maker ZTE. Convicted of breaching US sanctions on Iran and North Korea, the company first looked doomed to go out of business when it was banned from buying US components, and was then resurrected through a supportive tweet from Trump.

All a bit Thameslink
It isn’t just Trump – a tweet from author Eric Van Lustbader about food poisoning at a branch of US restaurant chain Chipotle (already reeling from an e.coli outbreak), caused its stock to fall. And in the UK, rail company Thameslink was threatened with legal action from Poundland for comparing its poor service to ‘Poundland cooking chocolate’. The retailer added that it if it ever fell short on customer service, they’d describe themselves as ‘a bit Thameslink’.

What the Poundland experience shows is that brands are now fighting back against what they see as unfair attacks. Nowhere was this more visible than in the Roseanne Barr case, where the TV star blamed sleeping pill Ambien for her racist tweets. Cue its maker Sanofi to respond (brilliantly) “While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.”

Whereas in the past they may have ignored social media mentions or only responded weeks later, brands are now wising up to the protecting their online reputation. However, I think they need to balance speed with the following three factors:

1.Be polite and engaging
It would have been very easy for multibillion dollar drug company Sanofi to respond to Roseanne with a dry legal statement or to launch an attack of its own. Instead, it balanced politeness with cutting wit, simultaneously undermining her point and demonstrating its good corporate citizenship.

2.Don’t get personal
When a celebrity, particularly one with millions of followers, tweets about you it is easy for things to descend into a personal slanging match that actually further damages your brand. Try and take the moral high ground, state the facts and think before you tweet. After all, there are likely to be brand advocates who will defend you aggressively, letting you focus on your key messages.

3.Take a joke
Brand safety isn’t about jumping on every negative, throwaway mention of your company and overreacting/threatening legal action. Decide what is important, what can be handled by a simple denial, and where it makes more sense for your brand to play along and show that you have a sense of humour.

The past few weeks have shown that marketers are now taking positive steps to protect brand reputation online – they clearly have the monitoring systems in place to intervene early, but they need to make sure they don’t become too corporate if they are to actually enhance their reputations rather than adding to online damage through ill-thought out responses.

Advertisements

June 6, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Brand safety on the wild internet

The internet has always had contradictory roots. The infrastructure may have begun as a DARPA-funded project to create a network with no single point of failure, but its first major users were counter-culture Californians who launched bulletin boards on the back of it. And the World Wide Web itself was created by Tim Berners-Lee when working at CERN, essentially to allow different researchers, with different IT systems to share information seamlessly.

pexels-photo-266246.jpeg

This contradiction is still present in the titans that currently dominate the online world. The likes of Facebook and Google may try to publicly position themselves as entrepreneurial start-ups with more in common with the California hippies when talking to users, but in fact they are now enormous corporations with correspondingly huge power.

As we’ve seen with the scandals surrounding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, internal systems and data protection haven’t grown as fast as the need for control of user data. And this follows concerns about adverts being run next to unsuitable content on the likes of YouTube, leading to brands such as Under Armour pulling their ads.

The issue is one of brand safety – companies want to protect their reputation as well as reach the right audiences. In an always-on world with ever more complex (and opaque) ad-buying systems and increasing personalisation being sure your messages are reaching the right audiences through the right channels is vital. This isn’t just applicable to the internet – I’ve recently seen lots of adverts for household cleaning products on kids TV channels, although you can argue they are more targeted at parents watching alongside their offspring.

The latest challenge to the big internet companies goes beyond poor ad positioning though – focusing instead on unauthorised use of a brand to essentially front a scam. Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert.com and consumer finance guru, is suing Facebook for running adverts that use his image to market high risk or fraudulent services, implying that he has endorsed them. Facebook counters that as soon as such adverts are reported, they remove them, only for them to pop up again with slight changes.

Given Lewis’ whole reputation is built on delivering honest consumer advice to save people money, it is no surprise either that he’s been targeted by scammers or that he is going to court to protect his brand image. As he says, he doesn’t do adverts, and that with their image recognition technology Facebook should be able to block anyone trying to use his photo, before it goes live. Lewis isn’t alone in having his details hijacked – we’ve all had emails and calls allegedly from Microsoft, BT or our bank trying to get us to handover control of our PC or account details. But the difference is that no third party is making money out of these activities – unlike in the case of Facebook.

By coming out against Facebook so publicly, and by promising to donate any damages to charity, Lewis is adding to the concerns around Facebook and its business model of publish first, remove later if necessary. It’s a great PR strategy on his part – a classic David vs Goliath move. I’m sure it is also being closely watched by other celebrities and organisations worried about their brand safety online.

All of the current concerns around big tech are part of a wider worry – from consumers to governments and advertisers themselves, people are waking up to the fact that their data is out of their control, and that companies are making large amounts of money from it. I think that 2018 is going to be a watershed year for the online giants – it is time for them to change how they market themselves and become more humble if they want to rebuild and retain our trust. The question is, can they win us back?

April 25, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why leaving social media is bad for JD Wetherspoon

Received marketing, and indeed business, wisdom is that the future is digital. And that has lead to brands stampeding onto social media and devoting increasing amounts of time and money to engaging with their audiences there.

So the news that pub chain JD Wetherspoon is quitting Twitter, Facebook and Instagram seems to fly in the face of good marketing practice. Chairman Tim Martin has been vague on the reasons why it is leaving, citing the amount of time it is taking (as well as head office, its 900 pubs all have their own accounts), the addictive nature of social media, misuse of personal data and the trolling of MPs and public figures on social media.

pexels-photo-941864.jpeg

But reading between the lines it is more about a lack of engagement and impact from its strategy. It has 44,000 followers on Twitter, over 100,000 on Facebook and more than 6,000 on Instagram – a relatively low number for such an enormous, UK-wide organisation. It hadn’t been that active – the announcement that it was leaving Twitter was its first message in April for example, and most Facebook content was just reposted from Twitter.

However, not doing something well and not doing it at all are two separate things and I believe that the main reason that Wetherspoon’s is stopping social media is that isn’t really embracing the power of the platforms. It is true that most consumers are unlikely to be avid followers of their local branch of a chain pub – after all you’d not interact that much with your local supermarket, but they’ve not used it to create a buzz about local events or what they are doing. Therefore, it is logical to stop, rather than just going through the motions – and reap the news headlines and profile that the decision creates.

However, done well social media can deliver big results – even for 100% offline businesses like Wetherspoons. Here are three of the biggest:

1. Create a community
Why do people go to pubs? It is all about socialising, meeting people and enjoying yourself. After all, if you just want to drink it is cheaper to do it at home. Successful local pubs are all about creating a community – it doesn’t have to be on the level of Cheers, where ‘everybody knows your name’, but it is about interacting. Social media does the same thing in the online world – so not being present means you are not nurturing your punters when they aren’t in the pub.

2. Keep the influencers informed
Wetherspoon says that news will still be available via its website, but in today’s environment most journalists and influencers get their news through social media. They raise questions and start debates, and Wetherspoon won’t be there to take part in them. No doubt its PR people will be there lurking, but that is not the same – and failing to have an active account doesn’t look good to those journos who live their lives on social media.

3. People don’t want to change channel for customer service
Consumers want to interact with a brand on the channel that is most convenient to them at that time. And that is quite often social media – they don’t want to switch to calling or emailing customer services, as Wetherspoon now recommends they do. So therefore complaints will go unanswered, visible only to other consumers, without Wetherspoon getting involved. This impacts brand reputation, particularly of individual pubs, and further damages engagement.

I don’t know how much time and money Wetherspoon was spending on social media, and it could well be that it isn’t getting the return it is looking for. But shooting the messenger, rather than changing the message isn’t a long term strategy to compete – as Wetherspoon may well find to its cost.

April 18, 2018 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook, electoral manipulation and Cambridge Analytica

It’s a well-known fact that on ‘free’ social media sites, users are actually paying with their data, allowing them to be targeted with advertising that should match their preferences, and therefore be of interest. But the current revelations around Cambridge Analytica and Facebook show that the cost is potentially much greater than this, with personal data allegedly being used to microtarget and manipulate perceptions, and therefore heavily influence elections.

pexels-photo-433617.jpeg

While allegations into Cambridge Analytica’s role in the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum have been made for some time, with the company subject to multiple investigations, including the Mueller probe, what has brought it into the headlines more recently has been good, old-fashioned undercover reporting from Channel 4 News. It sent a reporter posing as a Sri Lankan businessman to find out how CA could help him influence a local election – and the results were not pretty. Even allowing for the bluster involved in pitching to a potentially lucrative client, CA’s now suspended boss Alexander Nix’s claims that he could use entrapment and bribery to bring down political opponents as well as microtargeting demonstrate a complete contempt for ethics.

The fall-out has been rapid. As a privately held company bankrolled in part by conservative hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer, CA has not suffered financially – but Facebook saw its company valuation drop by over $40 billion in the last two days, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg summoned to appear at a parliamentary committee to explain how the data of 50 million Facebook members was allegedly used (and retained) by Cambridge Analytica. At the same time the #DeleteFacebook hashtag on Twitter has been trending around the world.

Use of propaganda and half-truths to swing elections and mobilise voters is obviously nothing new, but the combination of the intimate position of social media in our lives and advances in psychological targeting mean that the majority of people are simply not equipped to understand when they are being manipulated through the likes of Facebook. And clearly the controls on the data that developers can harvest, access (and retain) are too lax to protect people.

So, I think two things need to happen. Facebook needs to put in tighter controls and make it obvious what data people are giving away when they use the service, download apps or take surveys. But more importantly for the political – and ethical – health of the population, everyone needs to be better educated about social media and online behaviour. Most of us have learnt how to pick out bias in newspapers, on TV and in the traditional media, but the personalised capabilities and echo chamber mentality of social media is something that has been thrust upon us without warning or time to adapt.

In the same way that people need to be taught to recognise fake news, they need to understand when they are being manipulated online. This should start in schools and encompass the whole population – if Mark Zuckerberg is smart he’ll attend the parliamentary committee, show that Facebook is changing and announce a global education programme on how to protect yourself on the network. Otherwise, the Cambridge Analytica story has the potential to significantly damage Facebook, hit revenues and reduce user numbers. The ball is in his court.

 

March 21, 2018 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

PR and the frontline of the information war

Like a lot of relatively new terms, fake news has a long history. Claiming lies as the truth goes all the way back to ancient times, with propaganda and false claims used to justify activities and to hold onto power. Take the commonly held view we have of the ‘barbarian’ Celtic tribes that the Romans conquered, which ignores their culture and achievements, or the Shakespearian propaganda about the poor governance of Richard III.

480px-Center_for_Information_Warfare_Training_logo

Frequently fake news is too polite a term for downright lies – and in many cases is used to complain about a point of view that while valid, you simply don’t agree with. On a more serious level, deliberate misinformation designed to sway public opinion is on the increase, thanks to the spread of social media and the fact that it cleverly backs up our own beliefs and prejudices.

Whatever the scale of Russian meddling in the US presidential election, it is not the first time the Kremlin has tried to disrupt democracy – but the combination of a receptive, partisan audience and easy access to millions of people makes it the most successful. And it isn’t likely to stop anytime soon – as CIA director Mike Pompeo recently pointed out he expects further interference in this year’s midterm elections.

Combating disinformation and fake news isn’t easy, but to be effective the solution has to involve everyone – from governments to individuals.

1.Governments
Many Western governments have been slow to realise the danger of fake news, and therefore haven’t acted to root it out. The US election has changed that, and governments are increasingly setting up dedicated teams to track and counter propaganda and other fake news. The UK Cabinet Office is creating a new unit to respond rapidly to fake news, whether from Russians or from other sources looking to warp public discourse.

2. Platforms
There’s an ongoing debate about social media and tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Twitter and the responsibility they should take for identifying and removing fake news. They claim they are platforms, not publishers, but are under increasing pressure to police their users’ content more effectively. They need to step up and be prepared to out fake news – otherwise they are likely to face greater regulation and/or advertiser boycotts.

3. The PR industry
Communications professionals need to play their part as well. There is a line between spin and fake news, and it is up to us not to cross it and to make sure we are behaving ethically and advising clients accordingly. The Bell Pottinger case demonstrates that not only are there reputational risks to failing to follow good practice, but there are financial consequences as well. We need to think through the consequences of our actions as members of society, rather than simply pumping out messages to the world, without reflecting on their impact.

4. The public
It often feels that we live in an increasingly polarised world, with social media making it easy to screen out views we don’t agree with. At the same time we’re bombarded with information, and very often don’t take the time to review and check it before retweeting it or sharing on Facebook. As someone who studied history I know how important it is to understand the source of a piece of information and therefore the bias and particular message it contains. Everyone needs to do this – but at the same time they need to open themselves up to having a rational debate. Ignoring or trying to ban other (legal) points of view just reinforces prejudices – as the saying goes “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

With increasing military activity and sabre rattling in areas such as North Korea, fake news can seem relatively low level and harmless. But it is the frontline of an information war – and it is up to all of us to combat it if we are to move forward as a coherent, democratic society.

Image By United States Navy – Naval Education and Training Command website at http://www.netc.navy.mil/netc/Commands/NETCcenters.htm, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56331324

January 31, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Facebook, News and the impact on communications

The last year or so has seen a rude awakening for tech giants, particularly social media platforms. As they’ve risen in importance, politicians, regulators and the public have moved from seeing their benefits to seeing their downsides – from the spreading of fake news to harbouring racist/terrorist content. Ironically, for the predominantly open and left-leaning leaders of Silicon Valley firms, social media has been at the heart of the Brexit vote and the Trump election, the two biggest political upsets of recent times.

And, all the while the profits of Facebook and Google have grown sharply – it is estimated that in 2017 these two tech giants alone claimed around 80% of every new online-ad dollar in America. Calls are being made for such companies to be more tightly regulated, and to take legal responsibility for the content that they host.

512px-Mark_Zuckerberg_-_South_by_Southwest_2008_-_3

Faced with this mounting opposition and a potential drop in usage, Facebook has been making changes to its algorithms, with the aim of focusing time spent on the platform on ‘meaningful social interactions’, according to founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. That means reducing the amount of content that people see in their News Feed from media and businesses, with the balance shifting more towards content from family and friends.

Publishers have grown to increasingly rely on Facebook for traffic to their sites, and many have already seen a drop in referrals from the social network. This has led to job cuts at many newer media outlets that have relied on social traffic (such as Buzzfeed and Mashable), as well as consternation from others worried about the impact of the changes on their revenues. Rupert Murdoch has called for Facebook to pay ‘carriage fees’ for using news from media outlets on the site, while others have demanded subscription models to support their journalism.

The key problem for publishers is that Facebook has increasingly become the place many people get their news, meaning you need to continually interest them with individual stories, rather than expecting them to buy a newspaper or browse from a news website’s home page. Many Facebook users probably couldn’t tell you who published the story they clicked on – and the same is true for other newsfeed services such as that offered on iPhones.

So publishers risk having the rug pulled out from under a major source of traffic – at the same time that Google and Facebook have hoovered up the ad revenues that previously supported their activities. While most people won’t shed that many tears at Rupert Murdoch’s power and profits reducing, there are bigger issues here around media plurality and holding people to account at all levels.

The dramatic drop in local newspapers has meant that councils are under less scrutiny from journalists than ever before, and while concerned citizens have taken over in some cases, they are less likely to be impartial or have the training to analyse and comment on complicated stories. I believe that the rise of the internet in general, and of social media in particular, has also contributed to a polarisation of views – people simply don’t see content that constructively challenges their point of view and makes them think about their beliefs. Being in a bubble makes it easy to reinforce existing beliefs and demonise the opposition, ultimately hurting democratic dialogue.

It is too easy to blame Facebook for all of these issues, but it does need to step up and take more responsibility for the consequences of its actions. That means looking at how it works with publishers, and the type of content it does carry, if it is to avoid heavier regulation and potential fines down the line. The ball is definitely in Zuckerberg’s court.

Image (CC) Brian Solis, http://www.briansolis.com / bub.blicio.us, via Wikimedia Commons

January 24, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Luther and Leave – the communication comparisons

As someone who studied history I have a tendency to take a long view of events, comparing and contrasting different eras. And, given this year marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, it is worth looking at any lessons that can be learnt by communicators from Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to a church door and the widespread rise of anti-establishment movements around the world.Martin_Luther,_1529

First, the political and economic context. Europe in 1517 was made up of multiple, often warring, countries, with power normally focused on a single monarch. Communication was vital to control – you had to know what was going on around your kingdom to ensure order, and larger countries relied on local lords for their support. Most people had a hard life, focused on the land and governed by harvests and the weather. There was one supranational authority, the Catholic Church, which claimed loyalty from all monarchs and their subjects. The rules it set helped ensure its power, pre-eminence and wealth, and Luther’s rebellion was very much against the more worldly behaviour of priests and religious bodies.

Probably 100 years before, Luther’s theses would not have got very far beyond the town he wrote them in. He’d have been arrested by the church, charged, executed and probably forgotten. But the invention of the printing press changed all that, allowing fast communication of his thoughts across Europe, where they could be picked up and turned into a mass movement.

Comparing then and now
Power today is a lot more decentralised, and rule by monarchs has been superseded by elected parliaments. There is a European supranational authority, the European Union, but only its most avid detractors would claim it had the same power over life, death and potential entry into Heaven as the Catholic Church. Instead of the printing press, we have the internet, and particularly social media, which is much more difficult to control, even by the networks themselves.

So, there are a lot of parallels between then and now – an angry population that feels hard done by attacks the establishment, whipped up by charismatic leaders. Both rely on the latest communications technology to sidestep official controls, spreading their message across long distances.

However, what I think is different is that Luther had a positive message that he firmly believed in – he’d been a monk, seen the church from the inside and created an alternative vision based on that. In the same way, Marx and Engels spent years studying the working conditions of the poor before drafting the Communist Manifesto. In contrast today’s populist leaders don’t seem to have a strategy beyond bringing down the old order, with policies that either pander to their followers or offer alternatives that are impossible (Vote Leave and the NHS will get an extra £350m per week) or will cause more harm than good to those that vote for them.

The lessons for communicators from both these examples are clear – if you want your message to resonate you need to have a strong presence on the latest communication channels, whether the printing press or Facebook, and more importantly you need to ensure you are seen as being in-touch with the cares and concerns of those who feel they are not being listened to. After all, the Reformation triggered bloody and sustained wars, the Inquisition and a hardening of positions that is still in evidence today in some countries. Politicians need to take that lesson on board and communicate effectively to woo the disaffected back into the mainstream if they want to remain relevant in today’s society.

December 6, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paperchase and the Daily Mail – the Open and the Closed

Shortly after the Brexit vote I wrote a blog post looking at what the deep division between Leave and Remain meant for marketers. Brands in many markets would need to decide where they targeted their products – at an Open, outward looking audience clustered in cities or a Closed group in the rural shires and much of the Midlands and North. In many cases brands couldn’t appeal to both equally without losing their differentiating factors.

Paperchase

Image Kake via Flickr http://bit.ly/2kaMZY1

The current case of Paperchase and the Daily Mail is the perfect example of this. After deciding to run a promotion with the right wing, pro-Brexit newspaper, a Twitter backlash caused the stationery chain to apologise and commit to not advertising/working with the paper again. Is this a victory for people power, a brand that has succumbed to mob rule, or simply bad marketing? I can see four key factors in the case:

1. Know your customers
Generally, Paperchase targets a young, funky demographic – not that many of whom will be reading the Daily Mail, I suspect. Running a promotion with a publication that doesn’t serve your target audience is initially a bit baffling. However, I can only assume that Paperchase was trying to extend its reach ahead of Christmas, encouraging a non-traditional audience into its stores, with a free roll of wrapping paper. As one of the largest circulation papers in the country, with 4 million readers on a Saturday, the Daily Mail gives a huge potential reach. Once there the hope was obviously that they’d buy more – unlocking new revenues for the chain.

2. Do your crisis management early
If that was the plan then Paperchase failed to understand the depth of feeling amongst its existing customers, at least some of whom are both vehemently anti-Daily Mail and extremely vocal on social media. Led by the pressure group Stop Funding Hate, they vented their disappointment through Twitter and Facebook. This backlash led to the subsequent climbdown from the retailer.

All of this appeared to take Paperchase by surprise, which suggests they hadn’t got a crisis management plan in place, or thought through the potential negative connotations of linking to the Mail. In the end it meant that they pleased nobody – existing customers felt let down and Mail readers felt unwanted, given the decision not to target them again.

3. Be sure of your strategy
Another factor that has been mentioned is the size of the social media backlash. According to reports, around 480 people responded on Twitter, and while they may well be the tip of the iceberg, it is not a significant number, given that in today’s society consumers are much more likely to complain about brands, immediately and in detail, through social media. This means that every decision is going to receive some complaints, particularly if you are trying to extend into new audiences. The question is what additional damage has been done to the Paperchase brand by appearing to cave into pressure so quickly?

4. This isn’t about freedom of speech

Predictably many people, including the Daily Mail, have claimed the Paperchase decision, and Stop Funding Hate’s campaigns, are an attack on free speech. After all, as they point out, we live in a free society and they have every right to adopt the editorial tone that they do. Harassing advertisers into withdrawing funding therefore undermines this freedom and democracy itself. This is a disingenuous argument – I don’t agree with the Daily Mail line on pretty much everything, but agree that provided it does not break the law (including the libel laws) it should be free to publish. As long as it provides a product that people want to read, in numbers, it will be attractive to many advertisers, who believe that it provides them with the opportunity to reach a mass audience that fits their demographic. The efforts of Stop Funding Hate are not going to close down the Daily Mail overnight, so reaching for freedom of speech arguments is neither relevant or helpful.

What the whole affair shows is that unfortunately we are living in an increasingly polarised country and brands need to think hard about the audiences they want to target, and build advertising and PR campaigns that will appeal to them, if they want to drive loyalty and safeguard their reputation. For many this means making a choice between the Open and the Closed – or risking appealing to neither and essentially becoming irrelevant to all.

November 29, 2017 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Making marketing mobile

Everyone knows that consumer media habits are changing, but sometimes it feels that marketers aren’t making the connection between how people now access news and information, and how they are trying to reach them. For example, smartphone browsing has now overtaken internet access on laptops/desktops for the first time, with the average Briton spending two hours per day surfing on their mobile, according to eMarketer. At the same time Ofcom reports 51.4% of web traffic now comes from mobiles. That means it is more than likely that you are reading this on a smartphone, whether on the move, at home or in the office.Nokia_X2_Android_(14309420090)

So what does this actually mean for marketers? There are five areas to consider:

1. Make it mobile-first
It still amazes me that there are sites out there that are not mobile-optimised, meaning users need to move around the screen to get to the information they need. It doesn’t matter what sort of organisation you are, people will be accessing your site via a smartphone, so make it easy for them. Also, use the facilities that a smartphone provides, such as location, to deliver relevant content, such as your nearest branch or shop.

2. Personalisation
Smartphones and Big Data provide marketers with unprecedented information about consumers. And at the same time consumers say they want personal service from brands, based on their needs. So why don’t we get this? One worry for marketers is the fear of a consumer backlash if customers complain that their privacy is being impinged upon, and there is a threat that using data badly will annoy and upset people. We’ve all looked at buying a present online, and then been followed around the web by adverts for it for the next week. So the rule should be to embrace personalisation but not be creepy – if in doubt, ask consumers where they think the boundaries should be.

3. Video, video, video
As someone who experienced the slow speed of dial-up access to the internet, it has taken me a while to fully embrace video. But for the majority of people today video is the primary type of mobile internet content they choose, whether on YouTube, news sites or streaming media. Therefore, ensure you offer this on your site, and use the medium to get your message out. Video doesn’t have to be expensive – you can even shoot it on your smartphone.

4. Speed is king
People won’t wait. And, with the competition just a click away, why should they? Ensure that everything you do online is geared to speed, particularly on mobile devices, so that consumers get a seamless experience. It may not be traditional marketing, but check how fast your site loads on specific devices and work with technical teams to continually improve it.

5. Social dominates
As the fake news scandals around the US election demonstrate, social media is now the primary source of news and information for many consumers. And mobile is overwhelmingly how the likes of Facebook and Twitter are accessed. Obviously, brands understand this and have invested in their social media presences, but it is vital to use these networks to their full potential. For example, Facebook’s deep demographic information enables you to learn more about your customers, target similar ones, and directly change perceptions and drive sales.

Finally, a word of warning. We are in a mobile-first world, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. People still watch TV and listen to radio – whether online or on old-fashioned TV sets and radios, so don’t neglect them. You need a co-ordinated approach to marketing your brand across channels if you are to rise above the noise and actually engage and build a long-term relationship with consumers.

Image By Chris F./tcawireless.com. (Nokia X2 Android) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

September 27, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marketing in the rental economy

When I was growing up it was common to rent a TV – they were expensive items and not everyone could afford to pay for one up front. But as prices dropped renting became the preserve of students and then seemed to disappear.

However the whole idea of a rental economy is back, just rebranded to on-demand. Take TVs again – given the price of a high end one, and the speed at which new innovations are coming through, renting provides the flexibility to always have access to the latest model without spending thousands. Why amass a collection of CDs when you can essentially rent them via Spotify or other streaming services? Looking at transport, many cars are now bought on credit deals that essentially mean you are paying a monthly rental to the manufacturer – and that’s before you look at the likes of Uber and Lyft. There are even websites in the US that let you rent high end furniture for your house or office.

512px-For-rent-sign

Speaking as a hoarder that wants to have that physical CD or book and to know they are mine (even if they then sit on the shelf after being digitised or read), I see limits to the rental economy. But I know I’m increasingly in a minority and a combination of the flexibility of on-demand and the fact that major purchases such as cars and TVs are often outside the budgets of many people mean rental is here to stay.

So what does this mean for marketing? I think there are three main things to focus on:

1.Need to keep customers loyal
Brands know that customers are now more demanding and less loyal than in the past. But the on-demand economy means that rather than simply switching supermarket or type of toothpaste they can equally change every brand that they deal with. Therefore you need to continually focus on keeping customers satisfied and consequently loyal – otherwise they will simply head to the competition.

2.Use the data to innovate
Digitisation means that brands in the on-demand economy have an enormous amount of data about their customers. Whether that is Uber knowing where you have taken cabs or Netflix having a record of what you watched, this information is all available. Rightly customers are wary about what brands do with this data, but surveys show that if it is used to improve the service and products they receive in ways that benefit them, it makes them more loyal to a company or service. So analyse this big data and use it to innovate and differentiate against competitors.

3.Brand is key
There are many factors that affect why consumers choose particular brands, including price and the choice of products that they offer. However in the on-demand economy, where the majority of interactions are digital, brand is a key part of the decision. For a start if they’ve not heard of your company they aren’t going to consider buying from you – and more importantly still if your brand gains a poor reputation sales will suffer. Uber is the perfect example of this – well-publicised scandals at the company led many users to switch to rivals, hitting its market share and revenues. Such is the pace of the on-demand economy that pretty much every company has a rival, often selling similar services at similar prices, meaning that building and safeguarding your brand is crucial to long-term success.

Digitisation is radically changing how we buy and consume products and services, with many moving away from outright ownership to a rental model. Brands must change how they focus their marketing efforts if they want to win, and more importantly retain, customers – or they risk being left behind by on-demand competitors.

August 23, 2017 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment