Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Flash mobs in Halifax earlier this week and Toronto yesterday. I new vehicle to raise aware around a cause. http://ping.fm/9wk5B
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Norex is looking for new staff to work on a Google related project. Check out the job at http://ping.fm/pPcyE
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
just found out the workshop I'm doing at Sobey's School Solutions on Nov. 6 is full. No pressure. ( http://ping.fm/SJUQ7 )
Monday, October 19, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Who really owns your company’s brand? The CEO, the director of marketing, the brand manager, staff, legal counsel, or your customer? What represents a brand? A logo, a wordmark, the staff, a website, a facebook group, or the end user? Would you believe the answer is “all of the above”?
A brand, or company identity, is no longer just a logo or name that is managed by one person in an organization. A brand is more than a functional distinction that differentiates it from the competition. A brand can no longer be contained within a ‘graphics guideline’ where you issue files of your logos to those reproducing it. A brand is an organic entity that is fluid, changes shape and is ever growing and evolving. It is represented through, and owned by, everyone that has any type of connection to it. It is ultimately controlled by those who have allowed it into their lives and have a relationship or bond with it – the end ‘consumer’.
These ‘organic brands’ are still made up of core elements that should be represented in any brand strategy; benefits, attributes, differentiators, and positioning are all key elements to the success of any brand. What should be noted is that a brand can no longer be contained after being outlined in a strategy and exposed to the world through an identity. When developing and introducing a brand, you need to consider that other people may take ownership of it right away, ‘run with it’, or see a new vision for what it should be next. They may speak about it as if it is part of their lives (which it is) and make comments about it that may not be in line with the corporate view.
Certain brands have even gone beyond the status of ‘brand’ and are something more. These new entities see people’s relationships going beyond a functional or even emotional connection. Toyota for instance makes reliable, good quality vehicles. These are functional elements that an owner would describe and give as reasons for purchasing a Camry. On the other hand, select Mini owners wouldn’t be able to explain the ‘functional’ reasons they bought the car. Their relationship is elevated to that of an unexplainable connection that lacks reason. They would probably say “just because”. Harley Davidson is another one of these types of entities where those who own one probably couldn’t explain why they do.
Other ‘new’ brands should be recognized. Google and ebay are two of the world’s top brands that weren’t around 10 years ago. What’s interesting about these two brands are that the end users ultimately own the brands. Searchers of information online have elevated Google to its powerful brand position. The company has even put a great deal of brand responsibility with their staff. They have a program in place where they are mandated to work in areas outside of their job descriptions, and have in turn developed Google product that has evolved the brand (i.e. Gmail). With regards to ebay, the growth of the brand is within the brand itself, and sustained by the interactions and transactions happening hourly. This online community ‘market’ is owned and built by those who buy and sell product, and they have expanded to other user owned brands such as Kijiji.
Brands are also now being used in spaces not thought of five years ago. People are speaking about, and bonding with, brands in uncontrolled social environments such as facebook, YouTube and Second Life. These types of environments empower people to openly speak about, support, become a fan of, or show distaste for brands. Some companies have embraced these new arenas of brand engagement, while others have lost the connection and control of brands in these environments.
Brands are organic entities that cannot be contained or managed. You can no longer simply develop, design, launch and manage them. Brands need to be grown, guided, evolved, fed, and supported by everyone connected to them. Also, while these organic brands have functional and emotional benefits, the end user’s connection to these brands may be elevated to an unexplainable level. Because of that, brand ownership now goes beyond ‘brand managers’ within a company to ‘brand champions’ who are everyday people.
A brand, or company identity, is no longer just a logo or name that is managed by one person in an organization. A brand is more than a functional distinction that differentiates it from the competition. A brand can no longer be contained within a ‘graphics guideline’ where you issue files of your logos to those reproducing it. A brand is an organic entity that is fluid, changes shape and is ever growing and evolving. It is represented through, and owned by, everyone that has any type of connection to it. It is ultimately controlled by those who have allowed it into their lives and have a relationship or bond with it – the end ‘consumer’.
These ‘organic brands’ are still made up of core elements that should be represented in any brand strategy; benefits, attributes, differentiators, and positioning are all key elements to the success of any brand. What should be noted is that a brand can no longer be contained after being outlined in a strategy and exposed to the world through an identity. When developing and introducing a brand, you need to consider that other people may take ownership of it right away, ‘run with it’, or see a new vision for what it should be next. They may speak about it as if it is part of their lives (which it is) and make comments about it that may not be in line with the corporate view.
Certain brands have even gone beyond the status of ‘brand’ and are something more. These new entities see people’s relationships going beyond a functional or even emotional connection. Toyota for instance makes reliable, good quality vehicles. These are functional elements that an owner would describe and give as reasons for purchasing a Camry. On the other hand, select Mini owners wouldn’t be able to explain the ‘functional’ reasons they bought the car. Their relationship is elevated to that of an unexplainable connection that lacks reason. They would probably say “just because”. Harley Davidson is another one of these types of entities where those who own one probably couldn’t explain why they do.
Other ‘new’ brands should be recognized. Google and ebay are two of the world’s top brands that weren’t around 10 years ago. What’s interesting about these two brands are that the end users ultimately own the brands. Searchers of information online have elevated Google to its powerful brand position. The company has even put a great deal of brand responsibility with their staff. They have a program in place where they are mandated to work in areas outside of their job descriptions, and have in turn developed Google product that has evolved the brand (i.e. Gmail). With regards to ebay, the growth of the brand is within the brand itself, and sustained by the interactions and transactions happening hourly. This online community ‘market’ is owned and built by those who buy and sell product, and they have expanded to other user owned brands such as Kijiji.
Brands are also now being used in spaces not thought of five years ago. People are speaking about, and bonding with, brands in uncontrolled social environments such as facebook, YouTube and Second Life. These types of environments empower people to openly speak about, support, become a fan of, or show distaste for brands. Some companies have embraced these new arenas of brand engagement, while others have lost the connection and control of brands in these environments.
Brands are organic entities that cannot be contained or managed. You can no longer simply develop, design, launch and manage them. Brands need to be grown, guided, evolved, fed, and supported by everyone connected to them. Also, while these organic brands have functional and emotional benefits, the end user’s connection to these brands may be elevated to an unexplainable level. Because of that, brand ownership now goes beyond ‘brand managers’ within a company to ‘brand champions’ who are everyday people.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
I have to say that Seth Godin has some very intelligent and insight things to say. I received his latest blog posting and think what he has to say is 'bang on'. There is a dramatic need to shift people's thinking when it comes to engaging and communicating with people. I would also support that if you establish a bond with 100 people he refers to, you'll make much more money off them than the 2,000 you've harassed.
For your interest, here's Seth's blog post from today.
Scalejacking
Dave Balter coined this great term. It describes the quest of marketers for size at all costs. Because marketers were raised on the scale of mass—TV, radio, newspapers—they have a churn and burn mentality. The internet turns this upside down. The internet is about who, not how many. The internet lets you take really good care of 100 people instead of harassing 2,000.
Yet, panicked marketers still look for scale (How many followers can we get? What can we do with a Facebook fan page?) and then hijack that attention, hoping to filter out the masses and get a few sales.
Scalejacking inevitably tarnishes most communities, because individuals (people) hate being treated like numbers just standing by to be filtered.
Steven Stills wrote, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." I think he was wrong. On the Internet, the mantra that works is, "Be with the ones you love (and the ones that love you.)" Ignore everyone else. It doesn't have good internal pentameter, but it's true.
For your interest, here's Seth's blog post from today.
Scalejacking
Dave Balter coined this great term. It describes the quest of marketers for size at all costs. Because marketers were raised on the scale of mass—TV, radio, newspapers—they have a churn and burn mentality. The internet turns this upside down. The internet is about who, not how many. The internet lets you take really good care of 100 people instead of harassing 2,000.
Yet, panicked marketers still look for scale (How many followers can we get? What can we do with a Facebook fan page?) and then hijack that attention, hoping to filter out the masses and get a few sales.
Scalejacking inevitably tarnishes most communities, because individuals (people) hate being treated like numbers just standing by to be filtered.
Steven Stills wrote, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." I think he was wrong. On the Internet, the mantra that works is, "Be with the ones you love (and the ones that love you.)" Ignore everyone else. It doesn't have good internal pentameter, but it's true.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Demographics
I've had this question in my head for months now... are 'demographics' dead. Most marketing and advertising planning looks at demographics such as 25 to 34 year olds, with $75,000 + household income that go to moves twice a month. While still very relevant, I feel that many marketers should go beyond the 'demos' and dig farther into behavioural and attitudinal traits of their potential customers. There will be select times where it will be more effective to target a group due to their behaviour than their demographic. These behaviours may transend demographics, and produce better results or ROI. More can be said or written about this, so I'll just leave this out there for people to think about and comment on.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Fan pages or groups? What is better suited for a corporate initiative? I know that the navigation of a fan page is more user friendly, but groups offer more functions. I welcome any input or thoughts on this.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Saved!
FedEx delivered it on time and I have a signature to prove it. Lets hope we win the business.
Saved?
FedEx may be back in my good books. Turns out the delivery is on its way. Lets hope they get it there in time.
FebEx
I'm a little displeased with FedEx right now. For a company I work with, I printed and shipped a proposal (worth a lot of money) to somewhere in western Canada. It was supposed to arrive today at 10:30am, but they inform me it was misdirected and will be arriving tomorrow by noon. This is unacceptable for a company in the business of getting packages from one spot to another. How many other businesses have suffered due to them. How are businesses expected to do business if they can't get support from companies like FedEx.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)