From The Rooftops

Making Value: Brands and Social Media

Lately I’ve had several organizations seeking out help with their “social media strategy.” As I spend more and more time explaining these things I’ve started to initiate the process by asking a series of questions: who is your customer? who is your brand? where do they meet? why?

Ultimately this hinges upon one observation: we seek out and sustain connections in the social web in order to create value. This is an oft-stated thesis, but an important one nonetheless. My goal today is to briefly introduce how and why this is and how it relates to brands.

In the brand strategy world we often encourage a client to “let the brand drive the decision process.” This brand-based thinking is also very useful in the social media world. If your brand makes rubber gaskets for industrial widgets it’s probably more important that you have a solid blog (and Twitter account) that enables you to discuss industry trends/topics related to your customers and their up- and downstream needs than for you to have a Foursquare mayorship incentive or a Facebook page with giveaways. If your washer brand is based upon integrity, quality, service and price and your customers are industrial widget makers, then you’ll probably want to use your social web presence to enhance their experience of you and your brand: respond promptly to customer input, share behind the scenes content that enhances your brand and its story. Use it as a means of differentiation: put up that funny photo of the time the account manager’s dog got into the breakroom leftovers. Have your senior product designer put up a technical blog post that shares R&D information about how and why the new line of washers is superior to the competition. Post a write-up of the company’s Relay For Life team. Don’t try to get Justin Bieber to tweet about your product. The supply chain manager mightn’t care if you have a Facebook “like” button on your homepage, but you might build a closer connection with them if they come across the Relay For Life post and see that there are people behind the email addresses with which they interact. Whatever you do, make sure it’s valuable: simultaneously in service to the brand and the customer’s needs.

Seeing as it’s the social web, there is even more potential for socially-oriented brands. If you have a brand that cultivates supporters, this is a great way to solidify that relationship and turn them into evangelists. Again, this is done by utilizing your social media efforts to be valuable. Give them a behind-the-scenes peek at the brand they love. Save them time and money. Share content they care about. Give them something exclusive that rewards them for reaching out to your brand. Be fun. The tricky part is understanding how customer needs and expectations interface with the brand. There is no ready solution to this challenge—no “app for that”—only active listening and earnest interaction. That being said, the process is moved along greatly if you make sure to “let the brand drive the decision.” As someone who loves consumer insights and digital ethnography, I speak from experience when I say that there is MUCH that can be learned about your business by working with the people who evangelize it. They are, after all, the very reason you do what you do. They love what you stand for—the way you make them feel—talk with them about it. Find out what more can be done.

There are several factors that you must keep in mind when constructing a social media strategy. A few important ones:

• Objectives – what is your desired outcome? (and don’t just say “more money!”) More brand impressions? A 10% increase in sales of product X over the next 60 days? More followers on Twitter? More blog comments? Improved clickthrough from the point of first contact to the product page? More positive ratings on Yelp? The first mistake that brands make is to step into the social web without a coherent strategy and set of desired outcomes. Make a strategic plan and work from there. Revisit it frequently. Make mistakes, own up to them, learn, improve.
• Available resources—Be honest with yourself: do you have 5 hours a week to do all the requisite legwork to keep a sustained and engaging presence online? 10 hours? 1 hour? Your social media strategy is better served by 2 hours of precise, effective and well-aligned efforts than 5 disoriented hours of standing in front of a “firehose” of digital information. Many organizations are tempted to hand it all off to a “Social Media Intern,” but I’ve always encouraged a reexamination of this. Would you leave an intern in charge of your press releases, customer service calls, sales generation, media relations, copywriting and branding? Of course not. The social web calls for strategic thinking and execution. Invite all the appropriate parties to the table for strategic planning and work from there. If you have an intern and you think you need to spend 20 hours/week executing this plan, you need to involve them in the whole process. Find someone who has what it takes to be a director-of-social-media-in-training and groom them for the big time. If you treat the social efforts as being that thing that the intern does between getting the mail and replacing the coffee filter, you’re going to get what you paid for.
• Creativity—One of the things that I love about the social web is how much room there is for innovation. It’s wide open, folks; you can do more than just self-promote and give away swag—take this as an opportunity to refine and demonstrate your brand promise and identity. A couple examples of interesting (though not necessarily recommended) initiatives:
  • Skittles changed the front page of their website to simply display any and all tweets that had “Skittles” in the title. …with interesting results.
  • Air New Zealand asked trivia questions about New Zealand and got over 4,000,000 organic brand impressions.
  • Jimmy Choo’s exclusive and high-end Foursquare treasure hunt encouraged fans to seek out destinations that were a part of the fashion scene.

These campaigns all come back to that recurring theme of value as a factor of branding. Skittles, who for so long encouraged us to do the impossible act of tasting rainbows, opened their front door and enabled us to do the impossible: instantly find ourselves on the front page of Skittles.com. Jimmy Choo offered a way for high-end customers who care about fashion to use their smartphones to more readily hone their visibility on that very scene, all by virtue of being encouraged to interact with a brand that thrives in the space.

You can see how this value-building process is delicate: it would make little sense for an elite, niche brand like Jimmy Choo to open up their front page to a Twitter search, and Skittles would be tremendously off-brand if they were to send you on a treasure hunt among fancy shops selling $200 T-shirts. A brand must first understand their customer and how their customer wants to interact, then brainstorm–come up with a fun, surprising and meaningful way to make that happen. Try it. Don’t worry about figuring out if you’re doing it right; you’ll know because they’ll tell you.

- Caleb

Adobe v Apple (via Caesar)

I recently came across a blog post by Olivier Blanchard that combined two of my abiding passions: marketing/business and ancient Roman history. Blanchard drew 10 business/marketing/leadership/etc. insights out of the legendary personality of Roman General and Dictator Julius Caesar. As someone who also follows the tech world, I found a valuable tie-in to the recent goings-on in the Apple vs. Adobe saga and I shared a comment to that effect. This matter, however, has still got me thinking about the future of the web and how simple and shrewd Adobe’s response seems to be.

For those who need some background on the whole Apple vs. Adobe matter, you might want to go here. Back? Alright, good. Clever, eh? Adobe got tons of positive publicity for their response and we can see why: it’s simple, fun and speaks to much of the criticism that is increasingly being leveled at Apple for, among other things, their heavy-handed approach to controlling the app store and the way in which users (and developers) can engage content.

Here is the very clever (fake) response that was crafted by @issaco:

Adobe is in a weaker position: their product, Flash, is at the heart of this controversy and in the opinion of many people, it was/is always a little too buggy and resource-intensive. …but it is widely used and incredibly flexible—it served an important need to the internet at a certain time and place. I don’t think I’m going far out on a limb to say that Flash is in a tight spot with the popularity of iPads and iPhones making web designers think twice about resorting to Flash for their websites, not to mention the 400 pound (it’s not 800 pounds yet, but it’s growing) gorilla on the horizon: HTML5. Adobe has even gone so far as to acknowledge this business threat in recent SEC filings, as discussed by engadget.

Because of this, it’s wise for Adobe to take a conciliatory open market tone, since it gives them a position from which they can either graciously bow out if and when HTML5 renders it nearly obsolete, or a means to reassert themselves (however unlikely) after winning a fair fight against yet another contender.

Here is my comment:

A key point that I’ve always taken away from Caesar’s savvy political (PR) toolkit is: to play for keeps but, nonetheless, be gracious with your competitors.

Over the course of Caesar’s military career and political ascendancy he made a great effort to be (or at least appear) a magnanimous victor. Throughout his military conquests the leaders of the losing army (or even the Senate!) would often expect to receive very harsh treatment (death, torture, expulsion from Rome, etc.) and, with the exception of his triumphal celebration over his defeat of fellow Romans, Caesar usually responded with open arms and fraternal love. This beneficence was received by the public as being indicative of a strong leader who was generous to a fault. In those bloody times they ate it up…

Let’s apply this for a moment: Look at Adobe’s recent response to all of the vitriol it has been receiving from Steve Jobs and Apple. They got tons of positive press and, on a certain level, affection from the tech world for responding to Apple’s hostility with a more cooperative and open message. With public sentiment as on-edge about tech firms having a distinct shortage of old-fashioned probity (for instance: Facebook overstepping its boundaries, Google inadvertently(?!) retaining user information, Apple refusing to sell a disabled woman an iPad when she only had cash, etc.), this was a smart move on Adobe’s part, and a welcome departure.

Ultimately, Caesar’s shrewdness and ability to curry public favor in the face of hostile challenges was, I believe, one of the many lessons that he passed on to Octavian and allowed Augustus to steer Rome out of the civil wars and (for better or worse) onto the track of Imperial rule that would ultimately see it conquer much of the known world. While this one kerfluffle won’t be garnering any triumphal arches for Adobe, it is certainly a move to be studied and celebrated.

Alright, yes, I did just compare the tension between Adobe and Apple to the epic civil war that surrounded the demise of the Roman Republic … overdramatic? Certainly. A good excuse to pull out my pleasure reading in the name of “work”? Damn straight. I think there are some merits to this, though, if only to give me cause to share the back and forth and allow us to revel in a smart response on Adobe’s part and a brilliant (fake) rebuttal.

But you can see why this matters. In their open letter on the matter, Adobe’s co-founders, Chuck Geschke and John Warnock write:

Adobe’s business philosophy is based on a premise that, in an open market, the best products will win in the end — and the best way to compete is to create the best technology and innovate faster than your competitors.

Many generals (and business leaders) understand this fundamental dynamic: be the best and the fastest, or be done. With HTML5’s writing on the walls, this statement allows Adobe to subtly acknowledge that Flash mightn’t be the best product any more, but restating that the decision is for the market to make, not Steve Jobs. Just as Caesar often made broad gestures appealing to the will of the people, Adobe’s shrewd efforts have effectively tried to extract the (sizable) challenges facing Flash from the heavy-handed ‘technocratic’ knockout punch that Steve Jobs keeps trying to lay upon them. Though I don’t envy their position, they are wise to shift the field of battle such that the decision is placed back in front of a public who is feeling increasingly wary of their tech decisions being made for them. -Caleb