Ok, cheap entertainment here …but check out this ad for bear costumes (wink). All kidding aside, this was served up elsewhere and as a ding on advertising, but the pitfall exists everywhere in all forms of brand communication: Borrowed interest (exactly as I am doing here with this post) to gain viewer attention, balanced against the hope that a brand’s compelling benefits will be shared, received and accepted. Video clip:
This, by the way, is why I don’t believe in Super Bowl television ads. Sure, sometimes they accomplish tremendous brand awareness, but for every infamous ‘1984’ Apple Macintosh commercial, there are far too many more ‘ads for moonwalking bears.’ The temptation for advertisers is to believe, that with so many eyeballs watching, a brand can and should do something spectacular. But more often, a brand’s advertising investment can be more effective by sticking to its USP and being smarter with media dollars. And before the cheers come loudly from the digital folks, the pitfall exists there too. Obviously, not all online connections or clicks are created equal. Even when an online audience is actively ‘searching,’ paying close attention, attentive within the published content (as in counting passes), consider the collective impact of static banner ads, repulsive pop-ups and pop-unders, animated Flash ads and expandable ads, as the focused viewer seeks to expeditiously reach/review desired content (count the passes). If you think people can TiVo through inconvenient television ads, you should see how fast I click past/around unwanted online ads, as I speed-surf to absorb (or post) my desired content.
Will social networks evolve us to a new environment to ultimately yield a different consumer communication result? They certainly empower consumer voices now. But what about the future of this environment? One possibility, a paradox, is that the earliest brands now becoming associated with these online networks, if well chosen, may be embraced by most members. But when the 500th brand shows up on the site, it may find a profitable, but empty party, as members say ‘I’m outta here.’ The social network sites are still trying to figure out how grow beyond being a charity event for their audience. How will they do this and what happens then? A person on the corner giving away free stuff is the greatest salesman in the world ...unless he has to charge for it.
Maybe they should just try the public television model: “Won’t you please donate, if you’d like to continue receiving this fine programming (space)”? ;-) ...Until then, we will not escape a world with advertising clutter.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Traditional 'Image' Marketing within Online Social Networks?
Hopefully, this will be the first of many posts and great collaborative discussions about revealing the most effective marketing strategies today, and in the years ahead. Perspectives on social networks in all forms, including social bookmarking and online brand communities; e-commerce and online affiliate marketing; 1.0/2.0/3.0; mobile networking and digital convergence; SEO, website strategies and, of course, blogging; all are fair game – as are all forms of ‘traditional’ advertising, media, PR, and offline promotions and events, etc. All thoughts are welcome.
I may, as a devil’s advocate, present the contrarian consideration to prevailing or emerging views on positioning and brand strategies. Frankly, telling the world that everything is now upside-down, and that we are now on the cusp of an unimaginable New-Tipping-Clue-Jump-Train-Point-Revolution is the way to create headlines, and headlines sell -- books, content, advertising, you name it. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of renaissance thinking out there, but not everything in the flood of ideas being proposed has been tested or proven, thus, not science. This blog, admittedly, may respond to headlines and also may not always claim to be science, but it is primarily about selling products or services, building brands …and building business.
As an appropriate first topic, this post opens the debate with the question as to whether node-to-node online social networking is only about 1:1 interactive connections and viral spread of communication (as now dominates most new thinking on marketing)? If so, why did a friend recently joked with me (after I invited him to connect in an online social network), “sure, I take all friends, I like people to think I’m hooked-up”? We’ve all seen the online mega-networkers, with 500+ of their closest friends. Sure, there are justified purposes for such a gluttony, career and other, but we also must honestly acknowledge the element of ‘schoolyard popularity.’ And consider personal social network sites that display an abundance of “I’ve-got-the-coolest-applications-on-my-site.” And then there’s the impressive expression of personal creativity on some social network sites. All of this seems to introduce some factor of portrayed image -- by the members -- in an effort to 'brand' themselves. Surely, not all brief recipients of such image can be classified as (meaningful) 1:1 personal connections. I guess its just ironic human nature how some of the same folks who reject display of mass-marketing (to anyone and everyone), practice the very same thing on a personal level. It seems the age-old trade of 1:many image marketing, however evolved, is still alive and well – even in today’s online social networks.
I may, as a devil’s advocate, present the contrarian consideration to prevailing or emerging views on positioning and brand strategies. Frankly, telling the world that everything is now upside-down, and that we are now on the cusp of an unimaginable New-Tipping-Clue-Jump-Train-Point-Revolution is the way to create headlines, and headlines sell -- books, content, advertising, you name it. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of renaissance thinking out there, but not everything in the flood of ideas being proposed has been tested or proven, thus, not science. This blog, admittedly, may respond to headlines and also may not always claim to be science, but it is primarily about selling products or services, building brands …and building business.
As an appropriate first topic, this post opens the debate with the question as to whether node-to-node online social networking is only about 1:1 interactive connections and viral spread of communication (as now dominates most new thinking on marketing)? If so, why did a friend recently joked with me (after I invited him to connect in an online social network), “sure, I take all friends, I like people to think I’m hooked-up”? We’ve all seen the online mega-networkers, with 500+ of their closest friends. Sure, there are justified purposes for such a gluttony, career and other, but we also must honestly acknowledge the element of ‘schoolyard popularity.’ And consider personal social network sites that display an abundance of “I’ve-got-the-coolest-applications-on-my-site.” And then there’s the impressive expression of personal creativity on some social network sites. All of this seems to introduce some factor of portrayed image -- by the members -- in an effort to 'brand' themselves. Surely, not all brief recipients of such image can be classified as (meaningful) 1:1 personal connections. I guess its just ironic human nature how some of the same folks who reject display of mass-marketing (to anyone and everyone), practice the very same thing on a personal level. It seems the age-old trade of 1:many image marketing, however evolved, is still alive and well – even in today’s online social networks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
