fake it to make it

There's a great piece of advice I heard around how to climb Mount Everest.

Start at the bottom and keep climbing until you reach the top.

The theory is easy, the practice is somewhat more difficult.

How should brands meaningfully participate in social networks and social media?
Look for situations where you can create value, and be relevant then start doing something.

The theory is easy, the practice is somewhat more difficult.

There's a series of TED from last year featuring talks about urgent need for a new focus on compassion. That series was the forerunner to the launch of the Charter For Compassion which launches later this month.

Among the initial talks that precede the Charter was one from Swami Dayananda Saraswati

He asks 'How do we, as a world, start to demonstrate real compassion, practically, politically, socially and economically'.

The answer is simple. How do you learn to swim? By swimming.
How do you learn to ride a bike? By riding.

But his killer nugget comes right at the end.

You have to fake it to make it.

To be compassionate you have to start acting compassionate. Even if it feels forced at the beginning. It then becomes a natural behaviour over time.

This is sometimes known as a positive feedback loop.

So back to brands in social networks and social media?
Look for situations where you can create value, and be relevant then start doing something.

Fake it to make it. Start doing it, act as though you want to create value, act as though you are being authentic and relevant. Act as though customer is a priority and over time the interdependent benefits are apparent and it becomes real.

The theory is easy, the practice is somewhat more difficult.

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit

turd polishing

Theres a well know phrase 'nothing ruins good advertising quicker than a bad product' [source needed?].
With that in mind I enjoyed an nugget in neuroscience marketing.com by Roger Dooley around Brand authenticity.

Roger says:
'The simple message is that today it makes no sense to waste money on polishing a brand that has underlying product problems. The mismatch between the brand message and the real consumer experience will surface sooner rather than later, and that dissonance may actually make things worse. Fix the product first, THEN worry about branding.'

Good point but it's deeper than that. If we agree that what a brand does is more important than the message then we are talking about value creation. Ethics, even.

So in looking for the elusive ROI on creating value in situations we should consider the behaviour that flows from these ethics and what it contributes the kind of society we live in. The big picture.

Unethical business practices and crappy products have direct economic consequences.
Simple example: Using crappy materials in foods (we've all seen the chicken factory documentaries) peoples' health is at risk.
There's the knock on of medical costs then, of course, these people work less efficiently, have time off sick causing a decline in productivity etc etc

Someone once said to me 'thinking in straight lines will keep you going round in circles.'

If we only focus on the linear progression of the economic events we forget that 'nature unfolds in all directions'. Economics, advertising and products are part of one vast interconnected whole thing, subject to the same natural laws as everything else.

One of the biggest mistake we as agencies make is chasing anything with a budget, but often it pays to remember you cannot polish a turd.

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit

thought for the day #274 thich nhat hanh

'In one sheet of paper, we see everything else...the cloud, the forest, the logger.

I am, therefore you are. You are, therefore I am. That is the meaning of the word ‘interbeing.’ We inter-are.'

Thich Nhat Hanh

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit

Interdependence.

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.
and...
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

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit