Thursday, January 29, 2009


Been reading Chomsky's 'Interventions' on my commute recently.
He comments on the US media's uncritical coverage of the Iraq war.
Some in the media have claimed they have been critical, but Chomsky argues that it's been the wrong sort of critisism.

'it's not working, it's costing too much, we should appoint a new general...the issue isn't 'how are they going to win', it's what are they doing there in the first place?'

A similar wrong I'm coming across every day is the continued use of 'old media' metrics into the evaluation of 'new media' marketing.

New media is infinitely more measurable beyond 'brand tracker' type metrics and assumptions, and only using technology to develop new more sophisticated methods of interruption is a doomed strategy.

Interdependence rather than integration is a better description of how old and new can work together. The most seismic shift being that it’s now a three-way process with the customers as partners.

Until recently brands have been able to rely on awareness or ‘opportunity to see’ to create interest in their products and services. Where traditional advertising and marketing can still deliver awareness to a point, the new media presents the opportunity to bring a response close. Blurring the lines between brand and response.

By brands focusing on engagement and interaction in these channels, a potential customer is much more likely to connect with an idea.
Principally because the notion of interdependence also means that they can contribute to the idea.

The simple fact is; marketing that they have chosen to participate with will be far more effective than marketing that is forced at them.
How a brand behaves interactively has a greater impact on brand perception than what a brand actually says.

Two points to note.
Point one:
In the digital networked space the brand message often does not arrive.
Or if it does it’s not in it’s intended form.
Case in point is Fallon’s Gorilla campaign for Cadbury’s last year.
Many people’s exposure to the campaign happened first online via the numerous mash-ups and remixes on You Tube.
Whether Fallon intended or even anticipated this is moot, but it does prove that ‘interdependent’ planning requires planning for content that you do not create or control.

Next point:
What Alan Wolk has coined as The real Digital Revolution.
Pre-revolution, me (punter) sees ad - leads to consideration – then,maybe, sale.
Nowadays, it goes like this: See ad - go to Google - go to network, then consideration then maybe purchase.
The networked world might be diminishing the ability of traditional ‘branding’ to influence our feelings about the product or service, but is drawing the transaction opportunity closer. As mobile devices increase in sophistication this gap will close further.

But the interdependence of the network (of which brands are participants too) gives us the ability to research and find out all the details from unbiased sources and that’s what now determines the yay or nay. Brands that embrace this interdependence are the ones that will be in with a shout.

Thanks to Charles btw

blog comments powered by Disqus