Normal 0 false false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

0 0 1 275 1568 experiencecommerce 13 3 1840 14.0 Normal 0 false false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

It is an amazing world today, filled with conversations and customer chatter. A billion dollar opportunity, now one can possibly talk to the customer, listen to his POV and build marketing plans basis conversations and not just hypothetical insights.

 But while it is true, one does need a strong analytical bent to analyse and infer from multitude of data points at disposal in this ‘all traceable’ medium; converting data into actionable insights also calls for an additional leap from the comfort of numbers.

 If you would have listened to Dan Siroker ( the one who managed web analytics for Barrack Obama’s general elections campaign) you would have been for sure amazed at the power of analytical decision making process.

But then again in the same video presentation if you notice carefully how when responding to a user question (around 34.06 min) about variations of the type of action buttons used in the donations page of the campaign basis previous action of user it seems the segmentation was not really basis Google optimizer.

I am also reasonably sure, some form of statistical modelling tool would have been deployed to get a sense of user action and conversion ratios, but finally some hypothesis basis judgement call would have led to creation of segmentation of user types. I refuse to believe users are so homogenous in nature that pure statistics can neatly bucket user demographics and usage data to neat small target groups. Also searching for data to guide user behaviour would lead to data overload creating an impossible range of data leading to number paralysis.

We must use data to guide us, but then real world insights also help create hypothesis to narrow results to sharpen data points to analyse. Else like someone famous had mentioned looking for insights could mean ‘trying to drink water from a fire hose’.

The connection has always been a matter of grave many discussions and even more debate. It started with Facebook’s ‘Beacon’ which was quickly withdrawn amidst much public outcry over privacy issues followed by popular thinking from Social Experts that Brands and Social media do not make for a great combination.

All such controversy notwithstanding Brands have continued to focus on trying to engage a community on Facebook, and why not? Facebook has over 25 million users every month in India. Indian users are also spending more time(3 hours per month) on Facebook, when compared to other popular sites like Google (1 hour 50 minutes per month), Yahoo, YouTube (1 hour 20 minutes each), and MSN (40 minutes).

Mathematics aside Facebook as a platform is the one place where real people engage in conversations about their life, work and play. Brands for decades have been trying to find relevance in these consumer conversations and learn from the wealth of insights stored therein, but I feel somewhere we are yet to find the sweet spot of mutual coexistence on Facebook.

Well I know there are campaigns and successful campaigns on Facebook, high on engagement/interaction metrics and volumes, but is that all? When one looks at Facebook’s credo it goes something like this 'At Facebook, everything we do is about making the world more open and connected. We think this has a profound impact on the way people communicate. We strive to find authentic ways for people to connect with one another as well as with businesses, brands and institutions they care about. These principles guide us when developing our tools and products for business.’

So it’s really about connecting – people with people and people with brands. Now look closer people with brands and institutions they care about. So it’s clearly not about the number of fans on your brand page – that’s just a number, it’s not about spending ad dollars to herd people to your pages. Principally the consumer has to care about your brand to engage with you on your Facebook page. So at the very onset the brand needs to be doing something right in its present environment to earn the respect of the consumer and not the really just start talking good on Facebook. Some of the brands ‘I like’ on Facebook are inherently ones I have deeper connect in the offline world, Pepsi for their connect with Indian cricket, Axe for the women they promise etc etc.

Now I don’t claim to be a ‘Social Media’ expert ( cause I really don’t know what that means - someone who understands tactics of communication in social media, or is it really someone who can help me meet a hot chick online ;)) but I do know one thing, something about Facebook and brands clamouring for numbers ain’t seeming so right.

As a first step I feel, we need to consider if a brand at its current life stage needs to be on Facebook, before rushing onto the platform. And if on Facebook how does it find relevance amongst the TG type defined for the platform. This needs to be borne out of the old agency insights formulation. Once we have determined the insight I guess ideas around building relevance should come easy. Travellers seek inspiration - travel stories; deal hunters need early information- deal updates etc etc.

Next step – define the first step to Facebook adoption for brands.

Lovely piece of creative from the makers of India's oldest and most revered brand of bikes 'The Royal Enfield' a.k.a. Bullet as its popularly known. Seems so much an Indian product in character that am not sure how many of us know of its British roots. It takes a true leader to be proud of its Indian heritage and not succumb to clichés in its communication.

If you know you are a cult it makes so much sense to stay true to your roots. Quiet confidence the brand exudes is phenomenal.  

Interesting use of digital platform - End of match video summary. Use the medium for it's advantages, it'ss not about ticking the boxes.

I don’t know if many in the agency networks notice how these so called large agency set-ups are quickly turning into sitting ducks at a client sponsored shooting range. Staring straight into the face of a change paradigm in both user preferences and media channels, these agencies have very little hope to survive as the world comes out of a deep economic recession.

Many agency folks I checked the last time around did not have any clue on what made Tweplforce from Best Buy the Titanium Grand Prix winner at Cannes, nor do they have any appreciation for the Facebook showroom that won this year’s Titanium Lion at Cannes. Their logic; net is for geeks and not where true creative expression occurs. But look around you folks everyone and their uncle (consumers) is already using the internet for stuff they used their TV for and much more. So how can you ignore this large consumer touch-point as a non creative medium? Heck what was the TV earlier, you ended up mastering the craft right? So why not show some re-thinking to master the new medium?

Well I do have to admit the internet is not for all types, just like TV or any medium has specialists in their domain. The net will not be conquered by the writer who is stuck in long copy/minimal copy debate, or the art director fighting over logo size with the hapless account executive. This medium is truly for the brave, the technology wired (technically the entire new crop of creative professionals), big idea junkies, not limited by copy-art paradigm but powered by the dream to re-wire consumer conversations.

Which side are you on?