Wednesday, January 09, 2008

What next for advertising and marketing?

The following is an excerpt from a white paper. I thought I'd share this summing-up to see what you think and perhaps entice you to read the full version (Marketing and Advertising Models for a Networked World, see left-hand navigation).

All contributions to the conversation actively encouraged.


Understanding how the world has changed and looks set to continue to change – how we are rejecting interruption and embracing participation, how we are moving away from control from the centre to the dominance of communities, what should we do?

I see three immediate routes and believe each is worth pursuing. Each represents a significant shift from traditional, interruptive advertising. Each represents something other than business as usual.

1. Widget Marketing: Make use of the current advertising space and populate it with ads which follow the best practice of virals and widgets.
2. Engagement Marketing: Involve communities in the building of the brands they use – connect them to your authentic voice.
3. No Marketing: Instead, apply the new mode of production the web enables. Communities as producers of that which they desire. No ‘marketing’ required.

Widget Marketing:

Widget Marketing is the easiest to achieve right now.
It fits with the how advertising is currently done – creatives can be done, space booked and paid for.
But we will need new measures of success – not necessarily how many times your ad is seen, or how many clicks it generates (though these will still be important). A further key measure will be engagement – how many people use the tool you provide and to what effect, how many people play with it, shape it as their own, and as a consequence forward it, or display it on their own webspace? While the url remains a significant element of web architecture, route 1 will retain strong economic value.

What should we do?
Create widgets instead of standard display adverts – no matter how in-context and related you can make them. (I appreciate you’ll need a period of both, I’m not suggesting you ditch all that in-context stuff over night).

These widgets must speak in the authentic voice of the people who make the products you are selling. That means involve those people in the ‘creative’. Don’t interrupt the conversation with your own spin. They make the pots, let them sell them.

Each widget should allow a personal outcome. That is, offer tools so the user can personalise, add to, subvert, so that it becomes something they actively want to pass on.
Example: The Pampers campaign in the US at the end of 07.

Because your ad is a widget, the user can place it where-ever they wish – on their own profile page on social networks, for example. In doing this they offer their own endorsement and share it with their network of trust – the people they connect with who share their passions and interests.

It is trust which makes recommended-by-a-friend work – not simply discovery (and it is perhaps the trust element that was missing in the friendspam of facebook’s initial poke at SocialAds).

Engagement Marketing:

This can be harder. It’s certainly harder than selling or creating for display space.

First, sort your head.
Start listening. Let the community take control.
Er, and that’s it really. Everything flows from this change in mindset.

Your brand is not your own. It is ours.

Cornflakes are a breakfast cereal not because that’s what Dr Kellogg ‘made’. Kellogg was in fact out to create a food which would suppress your sex drive.
That’s not what the community of users have decided it is!
Lucky for Kelloggs that they chose to allow that development of the brand!

Engagement marketers work on the assumption that they are dealing with converged individuals – people who are rather more than simple passive consumers – of product or message.

An engagement marketing approach would open up the creation of our widget marketing to the community in the first place. A competition with rewards for the person who makes the most-engaged-with widget promoting a brand, for example.

Further, an engagement marketer would be sitting down around the campfire with the community to help decide whether a widget competition was the right thing in the first place.

Simple rules:
1. Put the community first
2. Listen
3. Change

No Marketing:

In this model there is no ‘advertising’ or ‘marketing’ as we have understood it during the mass industrial interruption.
It has nothing to do with supply chains, value chains, or chains of any kind. It is about webs – of supply and value.
It takes advantage of the match between the way in which both the economy and the web work to create extraordinary efficiencies and ultimately greater value.
To take advantage you must create platforms which bring together co-creating communities who share a purpose and offer them the tools of collaboration.

We're getting better and better (and will get better still) at delivering the right commercial messages at the right time and to the right people, by focusing on communities and making use of social data analytics. And perfecting this has big wins for ad agencies, marketeers, commercial enterprizes and media... and this is a fantastic leap forward compared to the interruptive advertising that has gone before.

But the ultimate wins are about people taking control of the creation of the product they want to own.

If a community is involved in the co-creation of the products and services it has decided it needs to call into existence, this has two key impacts.

1. It has the potential to be a perfect fit. The people who’ve been involved in the co-creation of the product or service that results will love it and 'buy' it (that which we create we embrace, as Alan Moore likes to say). They will also rave about it – recommending it to other like-minded people, attracting more with the same passion/purpose to join their niche global community of collaborators.
2. Doesn’t co-creation of this kind imply a perfect fit between supply and demand? What's the need for traditional ads. The community does its own marketing - and it's powerfully peer-to-peer and with all the ramped-up trust that implies.

What is required to make this function?
1. Communities (what makes great communities?).
2. Tools which allow communities to self-form into groups of their choosing around purposes of their selection.
3. Tools which allow them to share and collaborate to produce.

White paper now available here.

8 comments:

  1. Interesting discussion but one aspect I think you're really missing is search.

    There is no better example of a 'non interruption' mechanism for advertising and marketing than responding to an enquiry made in a search box. A colleague of mine recently categorised search as a reverse broadcasting mechanism. The consumers are the broadcasters and the advertiser/marketer is responding directly to their wishes and desires.

    Currently search marketing only scratches the surface of a lot of big brand marketing budgets. That has to change.

    Rory Brown
    www.searchenginestrategies.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi David, Happy New Year to you, and a great question to kick off 2008!
    We need to segment the digital marketing universe into primary headings of search, classifieds, response and brand advertising.
    Search marketing is at the beginning of its life cycle and we should anticipate increasing sophistication in this pull-marketing model where brands can monetise this "database of intentions"
    Classifieds are already moving to the world you describe, they are fundamnetally p-p marketing and we are seeing blurring with C2C marketing and "the consumer as a channel". This is a really interesting space to watch and an illustration of how old business models are being intermediated by new players like Craigslist and Ebay.
    Display advertising (which on the web is primarily intended as response advertising) is where we are going to see massive change. However hard the industry attempts to create increasingly targeted, personalised ads, this is still 1.x media. It is still interuptive. Dave Morgan's piece "Outing Heavy Clickers" sums this up for me. Most web users ignore ads. Audiences are becoming more and more sophisticated web users and either psychologically or phyisically block out ads - we just don't see them any more. This can only be countered in the 1.x model by being more and more intrusive (eg pop-ups), but it's a pointless battle. It may take time. but for Media1.0 time is up, and this may be the achilles heal for Google and the ad-tech industry.
    So I'm with you that engagement marketing is what it's all about, and Mark Kingdon's piece referenced below is a good read. 1-1 marketing was a Media1.0 myth. We don't make choices as individuals, we make choices through interaction with our peer group, through our communities. Marketers want me to spend quality time with their brand, they want a slice of my attention. But my attention is a scarce and highly valuable asset - if I am to share it with a brand I want engagement that is relevant and of high value to me and my community. That's the Media2.0 challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi David and all the readers of the Faster Future blog

    Great posting, good thinking. I'll download the White Paper and do a bit of thinking.

    The one bit thats kind of grown in my mind about marketing and this century, is the "silly" idea of "reading my mind".

    As our customer analytics and especially social analytics engines get ever power powerful - consider companies such as Xtract obviously - we will soon approach a point, where our digital assistants (our laptops, mobile phones, iPods, cars, playstations, even our TV sets now become internet PCs accoding to a vision by Matsushita ie Panasonic and its other brands) will have natively the intelligence to monitor our behaviour - and then to contrast that to others "similar to us"

    Imagine Amazon's recommendation engine at an exponential scale.

    I think we are at the point where soon we will feel like our gadgets - probably the mobile phone first - will start to anticipate our needs, and to seem like they are reading our minds.

    So I'd say an element to be added is that "black gold" thinking by Alan Moore about the value of social analytics.

    (oh, and it may be in your White Paper already, I know you and Alan do a lot of stuff together, I haven't read the White Paper yet)

    Great thinking. I'll blog about this posting and link to it.

    Tomi Ahonen :-)
    www.tomiahonen.com
    blog www.communities-dominate.blogs.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Right, okay - let's get back to basis. What is marketing? The previous comment that we NEED (why?) to segment marketing into A, B, C is not to define what marketing is. The dictionary.com definition is cool:

    "the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling."

    meaning (to me),A. it's a holistic activity much greater than just the exchanges of messages via a medium and B. it's product-centric.

    Now you can come from the capitalist school and see marketing communication as a function of market efficiency - producer and consumers communicate. In which case the efficiency of that communication is heightened by 1. Its bandwidth (how much information is shared) 2. Its relevancy (the right producer talks to the right consumer about the right things) and 3. Its frequency.

    By this analysis the format of marketing is just a fad or a fashion. Widgets and community groups don't radically change the function of marketing, they just implement it in a specific way.

    You are correct that widgets generate webs rather than chains. And the main effect of this in relation to the efficiency measures above is frequency. Imagine it like fishing. Traditional marketing is like line fishing - the medium is the line and each fishy is put on the dishy one at a time.

    Webs like widget marketing is like net fishing. Entire communities can be hauled in at a time. The frequency of capture is much greater.

    The marxist view of marketing is a bit more depressing, but still relevant. Read entry for 'commodity fetishism' on Wikipedia. In marxist theory marketing exists to create an illusory perception of what we need to be human beings (dissolving our actual humanity in the process). it does this by pretending that abstract concepts are in fact reality and layers this onto inanimate objects (products) (E.G Windows Vista - your computing future!).
    This attempt to make us believe the abstract is in fact real is called a 'reification fallacy'. We call it advertising.

    The cynicism/awareness you are talking about is awareness of the fallacy. Like critics of literature, we are now critics of marketing. What was interesting about Marxist theory of reification, that as we humanise our objects, we objectify ourselves and each other.

    Marxist economics may be fucked, but his prediction of the rise of commodity fetishism (to its apotheosis in something like the Iphone) was spot on. What he thought was the antidote/solution to the whole capitalist process was 'class consciousness'.

    Take out the 'class' and isn't the community you are talking about online - the antidote to traditional marketing - actually a form of that consciousness?

    That would be reaffirming our awareness of being human beings and of products just being products. Marx's name for that aspect of community is 'social relations of production'. He argues (much like you Dave) that early 19th century mass production were destroying these social relations by disconnecting the producer from the consumer.

    'Marketing' was the ersatz replacement for that once real relationship. Engagement marketing is the recreation of it via digital technology.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In response to rory (the first commentor). One item that needs refined for searches, is intent. When one enters keywords for search, what about those keywords are they expecting? The first results tend to be "where to buy" links. If I am looking for information or implementation this can be quite frustrating.


    MAA, LLC

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Technical Terry - there are a lot of very clever people (and computer programmes) analysing the detail of search queries to determine intent.

    Some of this is fairly straightforward. Searches with the words 'review' or 'features' are usually researching queries whereas phrases like 'cheap', 'free delivery' or local area focused searches give greater indications that the prospect is looking to purchase.

    Query strings are becoming longer and more detailed as consumers become more sophisticated in their searches. Savvy search marketers and optimisers are tapping into these queries to provide greater relevance in their results.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the great observations. I am new to the whole social media
    thing and I was having a hard time understanding how this went together
    in a useful/meaningful way. I have a lot to learn, but I am enjoying the
    ride. I will do a post my blog and link back. Thanks again

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're welcome anon. I'll come by and take a look when you add that link.

    ReplyDelete

FasterFuture.blogspot.com

The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?