Why Google believes digital media is driving Oz culture and identity

This is an interesting take on Oz culture and identity by Nick Leeder, MD Google Australia & New Zealand.

$24Bn reasons to believe digital media is driving Oz culture and identity

Big, bigger, biggest

We equate size with power—bigger is better, might is right, loud is better than quiet, large is preferable to small. We spend our lives in the realm of big, bigger and biggest. Think about this paradox though—just as we place greater emphasis on size so nanotechnology (nano=very small) has resulted in the miniaturization of our world. Everything from microchips, to receivers and transformers. Cell phones and computers are the smallest they have ever been and the miniaturization of surgical equipment means lives can now be saved when before they couldn’t. The better a hi-fi the smaller it is and forget those dials—now you have a remote control that does it all and you can crank the sound up to 11 if you like.  Is it possible that ‘small’ is the new ‘big’ and that the future belongs to small, smaller and smallest?  When you are on the right side of right size doesn’t count.  The majority doesn’t matter.  I suppose that the moral geniuses of our time know that …. maybe it’s time for the rest of us to catch up?

Should there be a link between workforce development and the bottom line?

I attended an interesting discussion yesterday on workforce development and was surprised to hear it is a nebulous concept at best.

Should it be part of HR (which is seen as tactical) or Learning & Development (which is strategic)?

How should one define workforce development ROI? To the individual? Society? Or how about in OH&S terms that shows less absenteeism or injury while on duty has a positive impact on the bottom line?

Can one draw a linear association between the development of people in an organisation and raw Dollar outcomes?

Should one?

Previous post I spoke of moral motivation in individuals and how we can apply similar principles to the modern day corporation.

Workforce development is a good example of how business is confused over its motivation. The common mantra is economic considerations must come first (i.e. ROI) because if you go out of business you can’t do anything else. Societal and environmental considerations come next but clearly in a hierarchical pecking order.

The UN Global Compact gets it right when it speaks of the triple line in terms of people, planet and profit – in that order.

Why does business find this conversation so difficult?

The economic imperative is a false one. It’s rarely about going out of business but rather how much profit is enough.

Workforce development is an input just as profit is an output.

Profit is a consequence of doing the right things not an end in itself.

Of course business would prefer to have a balance between all three and not have to elevate one above another but that is a hard task considering there often needs to be short term compromises to realise long term gains.

Isn’t that what sustainability is all about?

How do you create a good corporate reputation?

Ethical business practice makes you more competitive, not less so. 

That’s because ethical business practice gives rise to a reputation that attracts people to you:

• prospective employees want to be part of that reputation because they want to be proud of who they work for; 
• customers want to do business with a company with a good reputation because it reduces their risk;
• same for service providers. 

The more people want to do business with you the more selective you can be. 

• You can pick and choose between candidates making it more likely you will get the best possible person for the job. 
• You can focus on customers with a better risk profile than others; and
• You can discriminate between service providers which means you will get more for your money be it in delivery times, quality assurance or innovation in process, product and design.    

Ethical business practice then makes you more competitive because it makes you exceptional in a sea of mediocrity and product mimicry.

Most would agree to this point. 

Where things get tricky is how to develop that reputation. 

As with anything important in life it isn’t about one thing or a killer app. 

Rather it’s like a recipe in which there are four factors at work – the planning that goes into the process, the inputs you use, the way you put them together and external factors – similar to the heat of the oven. 

Trust me reputation takes on a whole new meaning the hotter the temperature.

Online reputation management – what happens when they dig your brand?

So far in this series on reputation and social media (online reputation management or ORM) we have covered ‘Reputation management in a changing world’, and used a matrix adapted from an article by Pierre Berthon, Leyland Pitt and Colin Campbell showing ‘How to use social media when a commentator is being subversive’ and what to do ‘…when they are being contrarian’.

Now let’s use the same model, this post and next, to talk about how to engage when a commentator ‘digs your brand’ and what do to when their commentary is ‘incongruous’ to the nominal brand message.

 Q3 of the matrix below would apply where a message from a commentator was aligned with a brand message and was positive in attitude. Here the message would be viewed as ‘concordant’ which means the author digs your brand.

The question is ‘what to do, if anything, in such a situation?’

Online reputation management (ORM) software will have alerted you to the post and you now have an opportunity to engage with the commentator if you wish.

And you probably should.

Previously, we discussed the need to ensure that the use of social media not only engaged in a meaningful conversation with the community but that the engagement be used to ‘live the brand promise’.

Critical is to allow those people interested in your brand to also help develop and improve on the brand promise.

Never before have focus groups and labs been so easily and readily available to marketers.

But there are risks.

Often when someone is asked for an opinion there is an expectation you will act on their advice. This isn’t always possible which in turn can cause resentment.

The positives of facilitating further engagement with someone positively disposed towards a brand are enormous.

But they need to be used wisely.

Source:  Berthon, Pitt and Campbell, California Management Review, Vol.50,No.4, Summer 2008

How to use social media – when the social commentator is being subversive

In this quadrant (Q2 – see the matrix below) the commentator may on the surface be in line with the brand message but uses parody for comic effect or ridicule.

In this way there is a conscious effort to undermine the core values of the brand or to highlight the gap that exists between the brand promise and delivery against that promise, often with legitimate reason.

Dave Carroll’s ‘United breaks guitars’ music video is a good example of this (check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo)  as is Michael Macintyre’s Comedy Roadshow videos in which Ryanair comes in for some pretty funny (but subversive) parody.

The problem here is that long after the complaint has been resolved the YouTube video remains in the public space (in the case of United almost 10 million visits so far).

The threat in such a scenario is significant and needs to be neutralised/repelled.

There are different ways to achieve this but all favour the passive.

This doesn’t mean a brand can’t post a copy of the email correspondence between it and an aggrieved customer leaving other users to make up their own mind as to the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the complaint. It’s difficult though not to sound defensive or worse still that your brand doesn’t have a sense of humour.

By far the best response is to leave others to defend the brand while ensuring communication of your brands message is consistent.

For all its mistreatment of guitars there are a great many satisfied United customers – the trick is to have them come to your brand’s defence while you craft your communications strategy to neutralise concerns customers may have that you don’t value their property in the same way they do.

(Ps Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P45E0uGVyeg&NR=1 for one of Dave Carroll’s follow up videos to the United ‘series’)

Matrix: Source:  Berthon, Pitt and Campbell, California Management Review, Vol.50,No.4, Summer 2008

How to use social media – when the social commentator is being contrarian

From the previous post we know marketers have a choice when using social media.  Engage or ignore? 

The first question you need to ask is to what extent the social commentator reflects what Pierre Berthon, Leyland Pitt and Colin Campbell term ‘the nominal relationship to the official brand message’. 

Is it dissonant or assonant meaning does it fit or not fit with the brand’s message, cultivated by the brand manager over a period of time? 

Using a 2×2 matrix let’s put that continuum on the Y axis.  On the x let’s look at whether the response is negative or positive. 

With me so far? 

This is what the matrix looks like:

Source:  Berthon, Pitt and Campbell, California Management Review, Vol.50,No.4, Summer 2008

Let’s talk quadrant 1:  The contrarian

In this scenario the underlying message in the social media space is negative and the relationship with the brand message is dissonant (in conflict with what the marketer intends).  Here the social commentator is trying to be difficult – to create doubt and to question the brand.  It can be fun and entertaining but left to its own devices may develop a momentum of its own to the detriment of the brand.

Engagement in this instance is usually passive and attitudinally would be disapproving.   A passive response would leave the issue up to resolution by other users e.g. other members of the online community– there is a tendency for marketers to think about planting a response but this is never recommended and it carries more reputational risk than it is worth.  Another user may simply disagree with the other party and ideally refer them to an authority on the matter.

Reputation in a changing world …..

Social media gives us access to an audience at a speed we never imagined possible.

In the past the only people with access to an audience were the privileged and very powerful media barons via their media empires.

If you owned a newspaper you could make or break a career. A radio station? A pervasive and ever constant presence in the lives of people who would never ordinarily have let you in. TV station? King maker and a network that granted access to the rich and famous at pretty much anytime of your choosing.

Now anyone with a cell phone has the same sort of editorial power – a built in production capability and a platform through the likes of YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter.

With such power (cheap at that), we have the rise of the internet superstar. Do you know who Judson Laipply is? Have you heard of the ‘Evolution of dance’? As of today Judson has recorded over 164 million visits on You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg).

What then are the reputational implications for a brand?

Marketers will find strategy definition easier if they acknowledge that brand equity is now defined by the consumer.

As the consumer uses social media to take control of the brand so they have access to an audience at the speed of life.

Marketers do have a choice – engage or ignore them.

Both options however represent a purposeful action and how you exercise it, together with the attitude you choose, can either enhance or detract from a brand’s equity.

Anatomy of a Twitter death hoax

There aren’t many people who can call themselves social media scientists.  Someone who can is a person by the name of Dan Zarella who has just completed a really interesting analysis of the death hoax involving Nelson Mandela and prior to that Justin Beaver.  According to Zarella at  ’around 9:40 GMT on Saturday (15 Jan 2011) the phrase ‘RIP Nelson Mandela’ began trending worldwide on twitter, sparking a wildfire of tweets about his status as dead or alive.  This is not the first time death hoaxes have surfaced on twitter, but it was the first time I noticed one early enough to analyse it to try and find out how it happened.  So I grabbed all of the still existing tweets about Mandela from the weekend (15-16 Jan) and started digging.  Below is a timeline of over 6000 tweets about Mandela’.  Zarella’s findings were that:

• The first person to use the phrase was a person with the name ’lebolukewarm‘ (who has since deleted the tweet) (Let me know if you know their real name)
• The tweet was retweeted 71 times  in a few minutes 
• Although lebolukewarm wasn’t the first person to tweet it appears lebolukewarm was the cause of the rumours ‘tipping point on twitter’.
• This may undermine traditional ideas about influential users as lebolukewarm only has less than one thousand followers.
• NB Lebolukewarm shared with Dan the original BBM received – but declined to give the person’s name because they requested anonymity 

The challenge here was that it only took one person to act as a vector for the meme moving from Blackberry users to twitter.  The implications here are tremendous and show once again why one has to i) be certain of your source before retweeting and ii) be prepared for a social media firestorm. Those responsible for the welfare of Nelson Mandela need to practice their response to each and every rumour regarding his wellbeing.  So too should every brand manager.  Waiting for it to happen can only result in reputational damage and in the case of business an erosion in brand equity.

Building a reputation for authenticity in social media

How is a brand to be relevant in the social media space?

This is by far the most commonly asked question by those seeking to leverage social media.  It is also the easiest to answer.  Be authentic.

How can a brand be authentic in the social media space?

That’s the second most commonly asked question and is by far the hardest to answer.  It also defies a convenient sound byte.  A reputation for authenticity doesn’t depend on one single factor but rather requires a systemic approach to a conversation between a brand and its stakeholders.  I say stakeholders because it’s not just about customers.  It also has to include employees, service providers, financiers (shareholders) as well as other communities with a legitimate interest in what the brand or business is about (think special interest groups and NGOs).

Why include all stakeholders?

Authenticity by definition means a reputation for being ’real or genuine’.  This implies a process of testing, confirmation, a need to ensure that what you think you are getting is the real thing.  Cut corners, and exclude a stakeholder group from your communication, and you run the risk of being compromised in the validation process.  Someone won’t vouch for you when you need it.

Explain a systemic approach in more detail.

To be authentic you have to focus on a number of areas.  Here are just a few:

• The brand identity must be clear – what does it stand for, what are its values and how does it add value within the community within which it operates?
• You must be consistent in your engagement with stakeholders – a common message, common theme, similar language. 
• The brand promise has to be delivered.
• Your level of engagement needs to be open, sincere and transparent.  If you messed up recognise it and make amends.

 This is all one dimensional though – what about closing the loop?

Spot on.  That’s the next step.  The great thing about social media is it provides you with real time, detailed insight into your brand.  By providing your audience with an opportunity to give feedback you must be prepared to act on it.  Let them help develop the brand promise to the next level.

What about manipulation?

There is a natural tendency in the marketing profession to want to control the conversation.  With real time electronic ear technology readily available (think products like Radian 6), it is possible to know when a conversation regarding your brand starts.  Now imagine a client unhappy with your product or service.  How best to neutralise that unhappiness?  Have other customers defend your brand for you.  And that’s where manipulation can occur if a company decides to respond under a pseudonym.  

How to avoid manipulation?

Be authentic.