The relationship between brands and the blogosphere has generally been characterised by failure. Failure to understand the nature of the dialogues that happen within online communities. Failure to respect the cultural attitudes of said communities. And failure to realise what relationship building really means within the online world.

So how can the likes of Walmart¹and McDonald’s,² with their huge PR and marketing budgets, lack the insight and strategy to effectively cope with something as straight-forward as blogging? It boils down to aims, culture and a growing consumer resistance to brand communications³ Bloggers, like most web users, want to discuss and share authentic content. Brands want to sell and promote. The two aims aren’t mutually exclusive but brands struggle to reconcile the difference because of the second reason: business and marketing culture.

Traditional offline brand management thinks in terms of media buys, sales funnels and the sort of advertorialising that ensures a brand message is repeated as many times as possible. This approach has given rise to a multitude of semi-successful-at-best corporate blogs: seldom discussed and often ignored. And if obvious promotion doesn’t work then there’s always “stealth marketing” to get around consumer resistance. The result? Well if Sony’s,⁴ Walmart’s, and Mazda’s⁵ experiences are anything to go by then it’s epic fail all the way. It’s all the more surprising since it goes against the very principles that good marketing communication is built on: Creatively synch your message to the needs and attitudes of your target market, speak the language of the consumer and you’re more likely to be listened to. But as soon as brands go online something almost always gets lost in translation.

(more…)

1. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=49505 [↩]
2. Retrieved August 5, 2009  http://www.blogherald.com/2005/02/07/mcdonalds-outed-for-fake-typepad-blog/ [↩]
3. Retrieved August 4, 2009 http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/116672977.html [↩]
4. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=113945 [↩]
5. Retrieved August 5, 2009 http://www.marketingvox.com/mazdas_blogviral_campaign_falls_flat-017206/ [↩]

Whilst browsing Ben Haim’s blog¹ I came across a great series of visuals by David Armano². One of them, shown here, shows the interplay between social media fragmentation and influence. The ripples between individuals nicely illustrate how Social Influentials, one of the subject of today’s Basics post, affect their networks and accelerate the spread of communications.

Social Influentials, e-Fluentials, Digerati, New Media Mavens…The terms are often used interchangeably but they all refer to net users who are more engaged with the online world than average. These individuals participate in online and offline communities, discussing and sharing topics of interest as they do so. They don’t always have leadership roles but they do have authority and influence. Basically, when Socials speak people listen

One of the main reasons Socials have credibility stems from the fact that they’re seen as community members rather than as outsiders trying to push an agenda. In effect Socials are the opinion leaders in an ongoing series of dialogues and discussions. But because those discussions are web-based Socials have the potential to reach millions of individuals through the use of their personalised web-spaces.

Unsurprisingly, Socials are often regarded as vital in driving the spread of online communications, so much so that companies have recruited Socials to represent their brands online. The Corporate Socials are a relatively new, but potentially important, addition to the social media landscape.

(more…)

1. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://www.benhamin.com/ [↩]
2. Retrieved August 2, 2009 http://www.flickr.com/photos/7855449@N02/sets/72157606844282993/ [↩]

Earlier this year Burger King launched the Whopper Sacrifice on Facebook. Over a 10 day run around 23,000 FB users downloaded and interacted with the application¹. The popularity and innovation of the app garnered plaudits from both the mainstream and digital marketing press as well as from social media commentators and observers.

The response from Web 2.0 pundits was typically guarded: Whilst everyone agreed the campaign was innovative, concerns ranged from doubts about ROI and execution² to musings on how web 2.0 has “changed our ideas of what friendship really means”³. ROI aside, an FB application that causes grown adults to worry about the social fabric has to be doing something right. But what’s the real significance of BK’s Sacrifice? (more…)

1. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.whoppersacrifice.com/ [↩]
2. Retrieved July 8, 2009 //www.ideablue.com/2009/01/09/whopper-sacrifice-social-media-marketing-roi-done-wrong-buzz-done-good/ [↩]
3. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10211898-36.html [↩]