Companies are scared of using user-generated platforms, like blogs and social media, to market or create awareness of their brands. This is largely because, unlike traditional broadcast mediums, with digital platforms, users have more control.
However, users will discuss brands on digital platforms, whether businesses are part of that conversation or not.
So says Jarred Cinman, chief inventor at digital agency Native, who spoke at the ITWeb Social Media Summit, on Tuesday.
In a discussion about how advertising has changed as a result of these digital platforms, Cinman pointed out that brands are no longer based on what a company says about itself. Instead, he suggested, brands are created based on what consumers say about them.
He also pointed out that, traditionally, marketing and advertising is about broadcasting - on TV, radio, print and outdoors. However, he argued that even though the majority of advertising budgets are still spent on broadcast advertising, the nature of advertising is changing and businesses need to change their approach, too.
According to Cinman, users generate 77% of content about brands. He said this shows that people are talking about businesses whether they like it or not.
Cinman argues that businesses need to become part of the conversations about their brands because, while they can no longer control the conversation, as in the past, becoming involved will allow them to manage it, to a degree.
According to him, businesses can do this by trying to find the balance between user-generated content and traditional marketing and advertising by co-creating content with consumers. Cinman described this as 'devolution' - where companies hand down some of the ownership of a brand and content creation to consumers.
Cinman said this can be done through social media channels, but warns that communication in these channels must be authentic and transparent.
He used the recent Greenpeace campaign against Shell as an example of this. In the campaign, Greenpeace used a mock Web site, designed to look like a Shell Web site, to invite users to submit suggestions for the company's “Artic-ready” ad. The result was comments from users who were critical of the company's plans to drill in the Artic.
While the campaign was a hoax by Greenpeace, Cinman pointed out that users initially thought it was a Shell campaign. Moreover, he suggested the campaign illustrates what can happen on social media if people do not agree with what a brand is doing.
Cinman used a Chevvy campaign as another example of the consequences when businesses get co-creation wrong. In the campaign, Chevvy invited users to make their own Chevvy ads and upload them to YouTube. The users were given stock footage, which they could edit and add titles to.
According to Cinman, Chevvy did not anticipate the result, which included ads with negative titles that criticised the company for its disregard of the environment.
“It's not the power of advertising that's dying. The stench of insincerity has become anathema,” said Cinman. He warned that when companies are insincere in their messages, they are open to attack on social media.
Cinman used Nike as an example of a brand that was successful in its social media campaign. He said the company introduced a Web site where users could customise shoes and clothing.
He argued that the success of the campaign (which has become a permanent service, but is not available in SA) was partly due to the fact that Nike gave users a limited number of options. He says determining the parameters is key to successful co-creation, explaining that people need a structured way to communicate.
Finally, Cinman stressed that businesses need to listen more and engage in discussions with consumers.
Share