For no good reason other than the fact that I seem to (very sadly) spend my working life summarising and recommending stuff in powerpoint, I’ve decided to try to look at one issue or topic every week in a slide, a para or 2 of explanation and 5 things that I think brands can learn. Saves me time, gets to the point quicker and (if anyone out there actually reads this) saves you time. Everyone’s a bloody winner.
I'm calling it 'Slide Issue' and it will basically resemble the inside of my brain…
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Monday, 6 September 2010
Super-injunctions, the end of privacy and learning with Wayne.
Tiger Woods. John Terry. Peter Crouch. Wayne Rooney. The ‘Pakistan Four’. The scandals keep on coming. Something is clearly in the air. Indeed with news of other ‘super-injunctions’ in the balance, we can expect more revelations.
And it’s not going to stop. The blogosphere’s ability to evade the law and spread news and gossip and ISP reluctance to act as ‘internet police’ means that we can only expect more. More speculation. More privacy invasion. More ruined reputations.
Indeed, the more they try to hide the more relentlessly they will be pursued by the media, by the blogosphere and by the twitterverse. And this isn’t just true for errant sportsmen, or politicians (Mr Coulson, Mr Hague?) or any other individual for that matter – it’s also true for businesses and brands.
Brands who try to hide stuff are equally vilified. Nike’s use of ‘sweatshops’ was uncovered 10 years ago and people STILL remember: http://bit.ly/RF89O. More recently Trafigura’s super-injunction against the Guardian failed to hold due to a combination of Twitter and parliament (http://bit.ly/3QQnZY). Just two examples, but two which show the hostility which the online environment can inflict on businesses who slip up.
But what can marketers learn from the experiences of our fallen sporting, political and other heroes in this new world of Blogger Activists?
Five rules spring to mind:
1. Don’t think you’re invincible: it’s getting increasingly hard to cover things up – be aware that anything you do that might be deemed ‘ethically dubious’ is more likely to be exposed than not (no one is immune).
2. Know your audience: we expect, nay, admire rock stars who sleep with 10,000 groupies and snort their bodyweight in coke every month but we expect more from our sportsmen and women (and also from our brands).
3. Be authentic: obviously, if this means sleeping with prostitutes and poisoning Africans you should first put your house in order, but brands, businesses (and individuals) who know and live their values are more likely to endure.
4. Be honest: years of witnessing slippery politicians and businessmen trying to hold on to their jobs with tenuous arguments has hardened people, but it has also made them very receptive to the ‘mea culpa’ and the cold, hard truth.
5. Manage expectations: don’t set yourself up for a fall by putting yourself on a pedestal Tiger-style – having flaws is not a bad thing, hiding them to make more money most definitely is.
These 5 rules will not save you if you have a habit of breaking the law or breaking your vows. They will not help you if your moral compass is off kilter. And they will not help if your company gut instinct is to first fire off a ‘Cease and Desist Order'.
But they will help you build a strong reputation and avoid the fury of an instinctively hostile and cynical new media environment.
I leave you with this fantastic drubbing of brands who don’t quite get it (especially on points 2,3 and 5 above), as penned by the great Charlie Brooker (@charltonbrooker).
Sometimes the old (media) ones are still the best: http://bit.ly/5cqVJd.
And it’s not going to stop. The blogosphere’s ability to evade the law and spread news and gossip and ISP reluctance to act as ‘internet police’ means that we can only expect more. More speculation. More privacy invasion. More ruined reputations.
Indeed, the more they try to hide the more relentlessly they will be pursued by the media, by the blogosphere and by the twitterverse. And this isn’t just true for errant sportsmen, or politicians (Mr Coulson, Mr Hague?) or any other individual for that matter – it’s also true for businesses and brands.
Brands who try to hide stuff are equally vilified. Nike’s use of ‘sweatshops’ was uncovered 10 years ago and people STILL remember: http://bit.ly/RF89O. More recently Trafigura’s super-injunction against the Guardian failed to hold due to a combination of Twitter and parliament (http://bit.ly/3QQnZY). Just two examples, but two which show the hostility which the online environment can inflict on businesses who slip up.
But what can marketers learn from the experiences of our fallen sporting, political and other heroes in this new world of Blogger Activists?
Five rules spring to mind:
1. Don’t think you’re invincible: it’s getting increasingly hard to cover things up – be aware that anything you do that might be deemed ‘ethically dubious’ is more likely to be exposed than not (no one is immune).
2. Know your audience: we expect, nay, admire rock stars who sleep with 10,000 groupies and snort their bodyweight in coke every month but we expect more from our sportsmen and women (and also from our brands).
3. Be authentic: obviously, if this means sleeping with prostitutes and poisoning Africans you should first put your house in order, but brands, businesses (and individuals) who know and live their values are more likely to endure.
4. Be honest: years of witnessing slippery politicians and businessmen trying to hold on to their jobs with tenuous arguments has hardened people, but it has also made them very receptive to the ‘mea culpa’ and the cold, hard truth.
5. Manage expectations: don’t set yourself up for a fall by putting yourself on a pedestal Tiger-style – having flaws is not a bad thing, hiding them to make more money most definitely is.
These 5 rules will not save you if you have a habit of breaking the law or breaking your vows. They will not help you if your moral compass is off kilter. And they will not help if your company gut instinct is to first fire off a ‘Cease and Desist Order'.
But they will help you build a strong reputation and avoid the fury of an instinctively hostile and cynical new media environment.
I leave you with this fantastic drubbing of brands who don’t quite get it (especially on points 2,3 and 5 above), as penned by the great Charlie Brooker (@charltonbrooker).
Sometimes the old (media) ones are still the best: http://bit.ly/5cqVJd.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Asil Nadir, Opal Fruits and the power of nostalgia
Perhaps it’s the recession, perhaps it's cyclical, perhaps it's happy coincidence or perhaps it’s the fact that I spent Sunday evening dancing to Nik Kershaw (http://bit.ly/aEB1ws), but I can’t be the only (just) 30-something noticing nostalgia creeping up the agenda recently?
Scargill’s back. Asil Nadir’s back on our shores – http://bit.ly/cc37pN – twenty years to ‘recuperate’? Whatever. Ken Clarke’s back in the cabinet. The A-Team’s back (albeit appallingly). And there’s that oddly stage-schooled girl on the X Factor who dresses like early Madonna. All we need is Ivor the Engine and the Clangers (here for your ‘hit’: http://bit.ly/OQqN7) and we’ll be sorted. Even the French are at it with a return to nostalgic cakes (quoting the Times P. 38 today: “The French disease is nostalgia and nowhere more so than for their cakes”). Marie Antoinette was right all along.
But we’re not just seeing it in the news. Realising the strong emotional potential of nostalgia and understanding how it can act as a ‘balm’ in hard times, brands are harking back to supposedly ‘better’ times.
Mars has brought back the ‘made to make your mouth water’ line for Starburst (now make them Opal Fruits again and while you’re at it, let’s have Marathon back). The ‘Tetley Tea Folk’ are back under the hackneyed guise of ‘by popular demand’ (http://bit.ly/aRpYWA). Virgin Atlantic, Persil, Fairy, M&S and Thinkbox have all been at it (thanks nicofell: http://bit.ly/cSHB95).
And what would a trend be without its own festival? The ‘Vintage at Goodwood’ festival a few weeks ago (http://bit.ly/aniXbN) celebrated all things British going back 5 decades, in collaboration with brands like B&Q, Bonhams, Audi, Fortnum’s, John Lewis, Tanqueray – the list is long and distinguished.
Brands with ‘nostalgic pull’ not looking to use it at a time when people are crying out for some comfort marketing are missing a trick. The key is in understanding how to create that warm feeling: lots of brands (Fairy, M&S, etc) take the easy route and simply re-introduce old ad mechanics and strap-lines. Cleverer ones (like Virgin Atlantic) hark back to a golden age in their industry in a contemporary way or celebrate the culture of a different age (as all the brands at Vintage@Goodwood have recognised).
Whatever the route, nostalgia is an emotionally effective marketing strategy and every brand should look at how to use it whilst the uncertainty of recession remains.
Scargill’s back. Asil Nadir’s back on our shores – http://bit.ly/cc37pN – twenty years to ‘recuperate’? Whatever. Ken Clarke’s back in the cabinet. The A-Team’s back (albeit appallingly). And there’s that oddly stage-schooled girl on the X Factor who dresses like early Madonna. All we need is Ivor the Engine and the Clangers (here for your ‘hit’: http://bit.ly/OQqN7) and we’ll be sorted. Even the French are at it with a return to nostalgic cakes (quoting the Times P. 38 today: “The French disease is nostalgia and nowhere more so than for their cakes”). Marie Antoinette was right all along.
But we’re not just seeing it in the news. Realising the strong emotional potential of nostalgia and understanding how it can act as a ‘balm’ in hard times, brands are harking back to supposedly ‘better’ times.
Mars has brought back the ‘made to make your mouth water’ line for Starburst (now make them Opal Fruits again and while you’re at it, let’s have Marathon back). The ‘Tetley Tea Folk’ are back under the hackneyed guise of ‘by popular demand’ (http://bit.ly/aRpYWA). Virgin Atlantic, Persil, Fairy, M&S and Thinkbox have all been at it (thanks nicofell: http://bit.ly/cSHB95).
And what would a trend be without its own festival? The ‘Vintage at Goodwood’ festival a few weeks ago (http://bit.ly/aniXbN) celebrated all things British going back 5 decades, in collaboration with brands like B&Q, Bonhams, Audi, Fortnum’s, John Lewis, Tanqueray – the list is long and distinguished.
Brands with ‘nostalgic pull’ not looking to use it at a time when people are crying out for some comfort marketing are missing a trick. The key is in understanding how to create that warm feeling: lots of brands (Fairy, M&S, etc) take the easy route and simply re-introduce old ad mechanics and strap-lines. Cleverer ones (like Virgin Atlantic) hark back to a golden age in their industry in a contemporary way or celebrate the culture of a different age (as all the brands at Vintage@Goodwood have recognised).
Whatever the route, nostalgia is an emotionally effective marketing strategy and every brand should look at how to use it whilst the uncertainty of recession remains.
Monday, 23 August 2010
Charity: 'nice to do' or 'nice little earner'?
Amongst ‘Stuff Bothering Me Lately’ is the fact that brands often keep their charity partnerships in a dark, dusty backroom watched over occasionally by bearded CSR types whilst they keep their sponsorships in a shiny penthouse with panoramic views of the sea and on-tap butler service from only the best and slickest staff.
As we’ve seen from recent events (see my last post) charitable giving is all the rage. And from a brand perspective it’s just as effective at pulling in the punters as the latest and greatest sport, talent, music or cultural sponsorship. This is partially because people ‘get’ charity and fundraising much more than they used to.
I’m a 70s child. Before I was born, charity hadn’t really hit the mainstream. It was all RNLI lifeboats that did fun things when you put a coin in and life-size ‘Guidedog for the Blind’ doggy banks. Then the 80s happened and the likes of Comic Relief (how old do I feel: http://bit.ly/8pCPEd) and Children in Need hit our screens. Charitable giving grew up. And ever since then we’ve got used to hearing about poverty, need and giving. Quite simply, we’ve all grown up with charity and it’s become as much a part of our lives as sport, music and celebrity.
And the old hackneyed charity tactics are long gone. New technology abounds. The Cricket Foundation’s Chance to Shine uses online technology as well as any brand (http://bit.ly/ds1MjL). De Paul’s ‘iHobo’ app explores technology as a means of educating people about homelessness (http://www.ihobo.org/). Some brands, like Ralph Lauren, tap into the creative industries for charity (http://artstars.polojeans.com/). Some become official partners (http://www.sportrelief.com/about/partners/sainsburys).
The possibilities are endless. But the critical thing is that for a brand, charity can be as much about hard commercial benefit as it is about creative engagement and fluffy feel-good.
A cleverly designed charity association can drive hard sales – just ask Sainsbury’s how its sales look on Red Nose Day or Pampers how its UNICEF campaign (http://bit.ly/cTI4He) has driven brand preference.
If you’re looking to boost your brand and business, charity could be the solution you’re looking for. And if you already have a charity association, dust it off and have a have a think about how it might work harder for you.
It probably deserves more respect.
As we’ve seen from recent events (see my last post) charitable giving is all the rage. And from a brand perspective it’s just as effective at pulling in the punters as the latest and greatest sport, talent, music or cultural sponsorship. This is partially because people ‘get’ charity and fundraising much more than they used to.
I’m a 70s child. Before I was born, charity hadn’t really hit the mainstream. It was all RNLI lifeboats that did fun things when you put a coin in and life-size ‘Guidedog for the Blind’ doggy banks. Then the 80s happened and the likes of Comic Relief (how old do I feel: http://bit.ly/8pCPEd) and Children in Need hit our screens. Charitable giving grew up. And ever since then we’ve got used to hearing about poverty, need and giving. Quite simply, we’ve all grown up with charity and it’s become as much a part of our lives as sport, music and celebrity.
And the old hackneyed charity tactics are long gone. New technology abounds. The Cricket Foundation’s Chance to Shine uses online technology as well as any brand (http://bit.ly/ds1MjL). De Paul’s ‘iHobo’ app explores technology as a means of educating people about homelessness (http://www.ihobo.org/). Some brands, like Ralph Lauren, tap into the creative industries for charity (http://artstars.polojeans.com/). Some become official partners (http://www.sportrelief.com/about/partners/sainsburys).
The possibilities are endless. But the critical thing is that for a brand, charity can be as much about hard commercial benefit as it is about creative engagement and fluffy feel-good.
A cleverly designed charity association can drive hard sales – just ask Sainsbury’s how its sales look on Red Nose Day or Pampers how its UNICEF campaign (http://bit.ly/cTI4He) has driven brand preference.
If you’re looking to boost your brand and business, charity could be the solution you’re looking for. And if you already have a charity association, dust it off and have a have a think about how it might work harder for you.
It probably deserves more respect.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Blair, Hope and Charity
I’ve decided to do another blog this week because a) my last one was crap (I’m learning, alright?) and b) this happened: http://bit.ly/aLtZEx. And this: http://bit.ly/byi9qh. And, of course, this: http://bit.ly/d3u4dU.
Firstly: every Billionaire, Sportsman and ex-Statesman worth his salt is giving their money away! Is there something they know that we don’t? Is the day of reckoning but days away? Have the Sun Valley club decided that poor is the new rich? Or have they all gone so far up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (http://bit.ly/fAla) that not even a football club can satisfy their cravings?
Secondly: the contrasting reactions to all of this is striking. The majority (led of course by the Daily Wail: http://bit.ly/9vrRWM) had something bad to say about Tony Blair’s donation. Most people were happy about the Dispossessed Campaign and Ellison’s decision.
Many would argue that only Tony Blair (allegedly) started an illegal war. I’m not going to go into that – or indeed whether we should question the donations of Ellison, Gates, Buffet and Dispossessed donors because of the odd skeleton in their closet. The question of whether to turn down a personal or corporate donation because of previous shady practise is a WHOLE other post.
The point I want to make here is that the media are great at painting the blacks and the whites but rarely the greys – and this is never more true than with the way they have dealt with Blair’s donation.
The motivations behind charity donations are not black and white – they are grey and complex.
Of course pure altruism is a part of it – the pure, unadulterated pleasure of knowing that your money is doing some actual good. But there are also shadier motives. Alleviation of guilt is one. Who doesn’t feel a bit guilty sitting on the sofa eating Kettle chips whilst watching Kenyan kids rooting through a rubbish dump? Boasting is another. How many of us has worn a ‘Live Strong’ or ‘Making Poverty History’ bracelet? Or felt smug at 'out-giving' someone on a Justgiving page or charity auction?
Indeed, whole movements have been set up on the premise that altruism is not enough to get people to raise money: RED (http://www.joinred.com/splash.htm) presupposes people a) want stuff and b) want to show people they’ve done good. Comic Relief (http://www.comicrelief.com) and Warchild (http://www.warchild.org.uk/) give people entertainment in return for money. All charities use celebrities to get people's attention.
I could go on but the fact is that charity donation is never as simple or as cynical as this: http://bit.ly/cA2Yxq (what an ironically brazen and opportunistic piece of PR this is, by the way).
Whether you *dredges up his A-Level political theory* subscribe to the Hobbesian/Daily Mail (everyone is inherently evil, dammit, EVIL!) or the Lockeian point of view (everyone is reasonable and LOVELY!), you have to recognize that there are bits of good and bad in all of us.
So rather than pick apart peoples’ motives why can’t we simply rejoice in the good that leads people to donate? Let's prove we are all inherently good by celebrating the good news.
And recognising that a lot of Veterans will be better off for Blair's actions.
Firstly: every Billionaire, Sportsman and ex-Statesman worth his salt is giving their money away! Is there something they know that we don’t? Is the day of reckoning but days away? Have the Sun Valley club decided that poor is the new rich? Or have they all gone so far up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (http://bit.ly/fAla) that not even a football club can satisfy their cravings?
Secondly: the contrasting reactions to all of this is striking. The majority (led of course by the Daily Wail: http://bit.ly/9vrRWM) had something bad to say about Tony Blair’s donation. Most people were happy about the Dispossessed Campaign and Ellison’s decision.
Many would argue that only Tony Blair (allegedly) started an illegal war. I’m not going to go into that – or indeed whether we should question the donations of Ellison, Gates, Buffet and Dispossessed donors because of the odd skeleton in their closet. The question of whether to turn down a personal or corporate donation because of previous shady practise is a WHOLE other post.
The point I want to make here is that the media are great at painting the blacks and the whites but rarely the greys – and this is never more true than with the way they have dealt with Blair’s donation.
The motivations behind charity donations are not black and white – they are grey and complex.
Of course pure altruism is a part of it – the pure, unadulterated pleasure of knowing that your money is doing some actual good. But there are also shadier motives. Alleviation of guilt is one. Who doesn’t feel a bit guilty sitting on the sofa eating Kettle chips whilst watching Kenyan kids rooting through a rubbish dump? Boasting is another. How many of us has worn a ‘Live Strong’ or ‘Making Poverty History’ bracelet? Or felt smug at 'out-giving' someone on a Justgiving page or charity auction?
Indeed, whole movements have been set up on the premise that altruism is not enough to get people to raise money: RED (http://www.joinred.com/splash.htm) presupposes people a) want stuff and b) want to show people they’ve done good. Comic Relief (http://www.comicrelief.com) and Warchild (http://www.warchild.org.uk/) give people entertainment in return for money. All charities use celebrities to get people's attention.
I could go on but the fact is that charity donation is never as simple or as cynical as this: http://bit.ly/cA2Yxq (what an ironically brazen and opportunistic piece of PR this is, by the way).
Whether you *dredges up his A-Level political theory* subscribe to the Hobbesian/Daily Mail (everyone is inherently evil, dammit, EVIL!) or the Lockeian point of view (everyone is reasonable and LOVELY!), you have to recognize that there are bits of good and bad in all of us.
So rather than pick apart peoples’ motives why can’t we simply rejoice in the good that leads people to donate? Let's prove we are all inherently good by celebrating the good news.
And recognising that a lot of Veterans will be better off for Blair's actions.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Naomi, Brazilian porn and knowing your place.
Seeing Naomi sitting in her little ‘high fashion’ bubble at the Hague a couple of weeks ago and reading this – quite absurd – claim from her PR (http://bit.ly/cSEWTe) got me thinking about what happens when people – and brands – become separated from what they do best (in Naomi’s case, throwing stuff about).
For brands, as with people like Naomi and her PRs, this frequently leads to misinterpretation, ridicule and reputational breakdown. Marketing is littered with examples of brands flopping around like fishes out of water, gasping for more familiar air. Whether it’s Habitat entering the Iran Elections on Twitter (http://bit.ly/hxmnO), Dr Pepper exploring Brazilian porn (http://bit.ly/cRv66d), Louis Vuitton doing its bit for genocide (http://bit.ly/5dRUq) or Nestlé (allegedly) killing monkeys (http://bit.ly/9fg6I2), brands who try to operate outside their comfort zone often come a-cropper.
Ultimately, it’s about understanding the environment you’re in and adjusting your language, message and behaviour accordingly (the ABC of social etiquette). Habitat needed to better understand ‘twittiquette’. Dr Pepper needed to understand Facebook’s dirty mind. LV and Nestlé should know that responding in legalese is the best way to put a charity’s back up. And Naomi should know that talking about ‘inconvenience’ in the context of a genocide trial is hardly a wise move.
When brands get it right (usually thanks to some rigorous planning or at least taking a step back and having a proper think), the benefits can far outstrip the potential risks. Jimmy Choo (http://bit.ly/9pgsuy) and Debenhams’ (http://bit.ly/bLRnR) forays into new technology were exponential successes, for example. From IAMS Pet Insurance and Mars ice cream to Caterpillar shoes and watches and BMW espresso machines, those that succeed are those who have a good sense of their place in the world and a solid understanding of what they can offer by extending themselves.
Those that don’t face likely ridicule and reputational damage. Next time, Naomi, be better prepared. And drop (kick) your PRs.
For brands, as with people like Naomi and her PRs, this frequently leads to misinterpretation, ridicule and reputational breakdown. Marketing is littered with examples of brands flopping around like fishes out of water, gasping for more familiar air. Whether it’s Habitat entering the Iran Elections on Twitter (http://bit.ly/hxmnO), Dr Pepper exploring Brazilian porn (http://bit.ly/cRv66d), Louis Vuitton doing its bit for genocide (http://bit.ly/5dRUq) or Nestlé (allegedly) killing monkeys (http://bit.ly/9fg6I2), brands who try to operate outside their comfort zone often come a-cropper.
Ultimately, it’s about understanding the environment you’re in and adjusting your language, message and behaviour accordingly (the ABC of social etiquette). Habitat needed to better understand ‘twittiquette’. Dr Pepper needed to understand Facebook’s dirty mind. LV and Nestlé should know that responding in legalese is the best way to put a charity’s back up. And Naomi should know that talking about ‘inconvenience’ in the context of a genocide trial is hardly a wise move.
When brands get it right (usually thanks to some rigorous planning or at least taking a step back and having a proper think), the benefits can far outstrip the potential risks. Jimmy Choo (http://bit.ly/9pgsuy) and Debenhams’ (http://bit.ly/bLRnR) forays into new technology were exponential successes, for example. From IAMS Pet Insurance and Mars ice cream to Caterpillar shoes and watches and BMW espresso machines, those that succeed are those who have a good sense of their place in the world and a solid understanding of what they can offer by extending themselves.
Those that don’t face likely ridicule and reputational damage. Next time, Naomi, be better prepared. And drop (kick) your PRs.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Luxury brands, social networking and knowing who your friends are.
The best thing I’ve received all week is Google’s deck on ‘Real Life Social Networks’. Here if you want to see it in all its 224-slide glory (http://bit.ly/b6A03x - thanks @dorando) but I’ll do a synopsis.
The basic premise of the presentation is that the way we structure our social life on the web is totally different to (and nowhere near as complex as) how we do so offline. Online we have an amorphous group of ‘Friends’ or ‘Followers’ who we have picked up along our offline and online travels. Offline we have a series of different groups of friends (research says 6 is the average) who we have met throughout life (and through lifestages) and who we most often keep separate.
Our dialogue with each of these groups is totally different in tone and nature. It varies from the formal to the friendly to the downright childish (well, at least that’s what I’m like with my schoolfriends…). Bringing them together as one (at a wedding for example) can be stressful and slightly scary. And yet online (through facebook, twitter, linkedin and others) we usually talk to them as one.
This is a big dilemma for brands and nowhere more so than in luxury (my focus for this week). Luxury brands face many online dilemmas (transparency vs control, how luxury lives online, etc), but one of the most critical is how best to engage online customers in meaningful dialogue.
Some brands (remaining nameless) are hopeless at this but many are successful. Some go corporate (http://www.facebook.com/Tiffany?ref=ts), some take the formality of the POS experience online (www.faberge.com) and some create a much more informal environment (http://twitter.com/JimmyChooLtd).
Wherever they choose to sit on the ‘cordial-chumminess’ continuum, the brands who will succeed will be the ones who understand that the customers they are targeting online are as segmented and as complex as the ones they see day-in, day-out in-store. Ultimately they will need to create an environment and develop a dialogue which appeals to all but retains the ‘charisma', 'premiumness' and 'personal touch' of the in-store experience.
The basic premise of the presentation is that the way we structure our social life on the web is totally different to (and nowhere near as complex as) how we do so offline. Online we have an amorphous group of ‘Friends’ or ‘Followers’ who we have picked up along our offline and online travels. Offline we have a series of different groups of friends (research says 6 is the average) who we have met throughout life (and through lifestages) and who we most often keep separate.
Our dialogue with each of these groups is totally different in tone and nature. It varies from the formal to the friendly to the downright childish (well, at least that’s what I’m like with my schoolfriends…). Bringing them together as one (at a wedding for example) can be stressful and slightly scary. And yet online (through facebook, twitter, linkedin and others) we usually talk to them as one.
This is a big dilemma for brands and nowhere more so than in luxury (my focus for this week). Luxury brands face many online dilemmas (transparency vs control, how luxury lives online, etc), but one of the most critical is how best to engage online customers in meaningful dialogue.
Some brands (remaining nameless) are hopeless at this but many are successful. Some go corporate (http://www.facebook.com/Tiffany?ref=ts), some take the formality of the POS experience online (www.faberge.com) and some create a much more informal environment (http://twitter.com/JimmyChooLtd).
Wherever they choose to sit on the ‘cordial-chumminess’ continuum, the brands who will succeed will be the ones who understand that the customers they are targeting online are as segmented and as complex as the ones they see day-in, day-out in-store. Ultimately they will need to create an environment and develop a dialogue which appeals to all but retains the ‘charisma', 'premiumness' and 'personal touch' of the in-store experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)