By Martin
|
April 20, 2010
When we wrote the book, we described the emergence of Mumsnet as a typical expression of web-enabled consumer empowerment, but we could not have envisaged how powerful this organisation would become. Although dismissed by Guardian columnist, Lauri Penny, as “the faux-feminist family values brigade”, there appears to be no stopping this group of evangelical mums. From shaming Primark into dropping a range of inappropriate children’s clothes, to taking Gordon Brown to task over his refusal to name a favourite biscuit, this is an organisation that is becoming used to being heard; so much so that all of the political party leaders are all competing for the Mumsnet vote.
ASDA, which has become pretty adept at crowd surfing in recent months, has recognised Mumsnet’s influence and has today announced that the web community will be approving the designs of its children’s clothes; a case of what you might describe as ‘crowdendorsing’. Where they lead, others will inevitably follow and the Mumsnet seal of approval will soon become the most sought after endorsement for any new product or service.
By Martin
|
April 15, 2010
It is one of the great ironies of consumer empowerment that it makes people less satisfied. As with all things in life, the more we have, the more we want. Which is why, despite the best efforts of our institutions (from government to commercial companies), customer satisfaction levels continue to decline.
According to a new study by Accenture and the Marketing Society, the percentage of people who’s “expectations of service quality are frequently or always met” declined from 53% in 2007 to 40% in 2009. The depressing thought for any consumer-oriented business is that expectations will never be met and that satisfaction levels will always trend downwards.
By Martin
|
April 1, 2010
I have described ASDA’s democratic consumerism initiative as one of the first mainstream applications of crowd surfing principles. When a business such as ASDA starts preaching the virtues of openness and collaboration – and then acting on those principles – you know we are dealing with a truly significant business trend and not simply a social media fad.
Thanks to those kind people at Freud PR, I have been made aware of ASDA’s latest initiative – installing what are described as “Clothing Cams” in two of its factories in Bangladesh. Previous webcams have been installed at Asda House in Leeds, a carrot processing plant near Selby (Carrot Cam), and at an automated cow-milking machine in Lockerbie (Cow Cam). These are unlikely to be the most exciting pieces of TV you will ever see, but the principle of openness is worth celebrating. You can check out the web cams here.
By Martin
|
March 25, 2010
One of the best examples of leveraging the enthusiasm and social conscience of the crowd was The Guardian’s use of its readers to scrutinise the mountain of documentation produced by investigations into MP’s expenses. Twenty six thousand amateur investigative reporters went through 22,000 documents in a matter of days. The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, describes this process as “mutualisation”, which The Guardian’s social media expert, Meg Pickard, defines as “getting readers to care about, inform and enhance our coverage.”
By Martin
|
March 24, 2010
Good write-up of the Nestle v Greenpeace story in Communicate magazine, which underlines some critical points for any corporate handling a social media-driven issue:
- Blocking or deleting content you don’t like is invariably counter-productive, no matter what the lawyers say … people will still find the content & it makes you look even more devious
- The tone you adopt in discussing issues is critical … don’t get angry or irritable, no matter how much you are provoked
As the lady from Greenpeace said: ”They’ve made it so easy for us”
This simply underlines the challenges faced by most corporates. The marketers and corporate comms people at Nestle aren’t stupid – they are simply hamstrung by the constraints imposed by their legal advisors and facing new communications challenges for which their training & experience has left them ill-prepared.
At the moment, all of the advantages lie with the antagonists – they know how to get the ‘mob’ on their side by playing the freedom of expression card & can invariably rely on a corporate over-reaction to keep the blogosphere in a state of mild hysteria.
By Martin
|
March 23, 2010
In Crowd Surfing we described how internet based campaigns were increasingly replacing walk-outs and strike action as the trade union movement’s preferred form of direct action. Employers have also begun to adopt this approach of appealing directly to their target audience, without relying on the editorial filter imposed by the traditional media.
BA’s Willie Walsh has relied heavily on YouTube in his battle against the Unite trade union and according to research published in Brand Republic, it is an approach that appears to be working: nearly 19% of those surveyed had an enhanced view of the airline and more than three-quarters of those who had encountered BA’s communications felt as supportive of the airline or more so than before.
By Martin
|
March 18, 2010
When a company reverts to an original product formulation within a year of unveiling a new recipe, you know that someone, somewhere has messed-up big time. Last April, Gaymers decided to reduce the alcohol content of its Blackthorn cider, unleashing the Wankthorn protest across the West Country … Facebook groups were formed, posters defaced and bearded men in smocks started running amock … I made up the last bit.
Less than a year later, Gaymers has decided to revert to the original formulation and rather than admitting that they made a big mistake – no doubt wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds in the process - the company’s marketers are trying to play the consumer empowerment card. If they were that bothered about what their customers thought, they wouldn’t have changed the product in the first place. This isn’t a victory for consumer power … it is an embarrassing marketing cock-up. Cheers.
By Martin
|
March 16, 2010
Another perfect illustration of how consumer empowerment is steadily eroding traditional sources of expertise … this time from the world of the theatre. Sir Andrew Lloyd-Webber has expressed much frustration about how his new musical, Love Never Dies, is being undermined by the comments and reviews of amateur critics on the internet.
The professional critics – termed the ‘cultural aristocracy’ by Vanessa Thorpe in last Sunday’s Observer - have joined the debate, in an attempt to defend the primacy of their viewpoint, compared with the ‘unfettered opinions’ of the digital hoi polloi. As veteran critic Michael Coveney, commented, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is not criticism.”
David Cote in his Guardian threatre blog, made a typically valiant defence of his profession, even if the metaphor he uses is rather untheatrical: “We critics, reviewers, consumer reporters – call us what you will – are the dung beetles of culture. We consume excrement, enriching the soil and protecting livestock from bacterial infection in the process. We are intrinsic to the theatre ecology. Eliminate us at your peril.”
I fear the dung beetles are fighting a losing battle against this type of evolutionary process. We only need to look at the declining influence of film critics to see what is likely to happen to their profession. Only this week, Variety magazine in the US has fired both its chief film and theatre critics. It’s tough being a luvvie.
By Martin
|
March 12, 2010
In the dreaded vernacular of government, the corporate affairs or corporate communications role within most major institutions is no longer fit for purpose. Predicated on the illusion of control – the idea that a corporate reputation can be protected by tight news management and the careful nurturing of a handful of key opinion formers – the role no longer bears scrutiny in the era of consumer empowerment.
The last 20 years has seen the elevation of the once humble in-house press officer to the uber powerful role of corporate affairs chief – the person responsible for polishing the corporate reputation, keeping the critics at bay and the stakeholders happy. They have done their job so well that far too many of their internal audiences (especially those occupying the c-suite) have bought into the idea that the world around them can be controlled, critics silenced and crises managed.
Unfortunately, in a world in which trust is at a premium, influence is dispersed and criticism is cheap, these masters (or mistresses) of corporate spin are struggling. Stories can no longer be buried with a quiet word to your mate on the city desk. Analysts are no longer reliant on your personal briefings and are picking up their information from the web. And the CEO is starting to ask why sites critical of the company are starting to appear at the top of the Google rankings. You are paid a big salary to stop this type of stuff from appearing … or at least that’s what you told them.
Welcome to the new world of the public affairs director … chaotic, complicated and largely unspinnable. It requires a completely new set of skills, in which an understanding of social media, behavioural psychology and influencer marketing is far more important than a bulging contacts list on your Blackberry. It is a world in which many of the people currently occupying the leading corporate affairs roles are going to struggle.
I am ranting on this topic at a free breakfast workshop on 26th March, hosted by Glasshouse Partnership. If you fancy taking part, here’s the link.
By Martin
|
March 11, 2010
An interesting suggestion from Alan Mitchell in his Marketing column about how businesses can strengthen relationships with customers by handing back the data they already hold about a customers’ choices – what he calls Personal informatics. Amazon and other online suppliers already provide a summary of our transaction history, accompanied by helpful suggestions about what we might also find interesting or enjoyable.
We often get paranoid about the amount of personal information held by commercial companies, but the irony is that in many cases, brand owners know far more about our preferences than we do – such is the disengaged way that most of us shop, especially in supermarkets – and much of this information could be extremely useful.