So, please come say hello!

natasja

I am sure that there are fantastic exceptions to this, such as Google and some retailers such as Boost Juice. But the differences are often stark. These are a few of the most common, and most frightening differences:

1. A sense of urgency – when there are lot of floors between you and a customer, it is kind of hard to hear what they are saying. Same goes with the finance department.

2. Spending – A bank recently accidentally transferred $7.8million to customers. I think a smaller organisation might have noticed the extra zeros.

3. Change – 1 person making a decision is (usually) faster and more feasible than layers of decision maker.

This is not earth-shatteringly new – but I feel that the gap is getting greater, and the risk of disconnecting with the marketplace more so than ever before as web-based or micro-businesses are taking off at warp-speed. I recently had conversations with several well established global consumer brands and realised that for all the budget and talented people, their system was continuing to drive them to do the same research, NPD and promotions that they had done in the past. A little more digital dazzle (if you’re in Kids), but essentially doing the same thing, in the same way, as it has been done since Kotler.

I realised that those brands and organisations that used to be a dream to work for may have moved from being the fast track, to the slow wade.

To get you started on moving back into an entrepreneurial frame of mind, here are a few thought starters:

• Get with the start-up mentality with 13 tips from Paul Graham
• Read What Would Google Do?
• Go to an entrepreurial networking event and start to surround yourself with an alternate mind-set.
• Approach someone you admire in a smaller business, profess your admiration, buy them coffee and ask how they would change things?
• Get a genuine change expert involved.
• Talk to your customers. And I don’t mean do a survey. I mean YOU. Get on the phone or in the store.
• Got some like-minded peers – form a “no to brackishness” group to meet for beverages of some description once every couple of weeks.
• Form an internal group / IM group / forum with these people – and keep the conversation buzzing.
• Stop, and consider what YOU really think. Radical, I know…but there is a corporate group-think.

What have you done to shift your backwater? Even if it is forming a faster channel in the middle, it’s still movement.

http://branddna.blogspot.com/2009/05/see-right-through-emails.html

Which made us think aboutall those “newsletters” that companies put out – digitally or physical, most companies have one in belief that this is what keeps them in contact with their customers. Yet, in reality, most of the time these are outsourced to a PR company or similar. If someone isn’t in your business, and has no contact with your customers…how is this an authentic voice? (I realise there may be fantastic exceptions) In a quick straw poll we realised that we all ignore these publications as having no meaningful content. We are certainly not engaged with them or as a consequence the brand.

Parallel to this is the increasing need for companies to participate in dialogue with their customers, often facilitated through blogs, active forums, facebook and twitter accounts. To do this well organisations need to be generating and using a lot more, current, content.

So the logical next question is – will companies start to bring their own voice back into their fold? Will they bring in their newsletters, wesbites and magazines not only to speak with a more authentic voice, but because it is a far more efficient use of resources?

This will vary with organisational type and their customer profiles, for example – a utility may still most effectively use an insert with a bill (for now), but what about a high-end investment firm?

I am looking forward to seeing what happens as more companies find their own voice again – and in doing so, start a real conversation with their customers.

What are Superconnectors? People who not only have and promote extensive links between online communities and individuals, but also distill thinking and information to help more people understand and connect over concepts. Their celebrity or position in the statusphere is reinforced and created by their direct connection with the community.

In an interesting post, Techcrunch discusses the transition from the traditional ranking of status online – the blog Authority list by Technorati and how that is no longer a true indication of status given the links, connections and content on micro-blogs and using other media.

I’m curious – what do others think?

more thinking to come….

Where to start?

My knowledge is very basic compared to people who live and breathe this, so I’ll start with the basics! As a practicising marketeer – I have found there are some useful blog search tools (after google and twitter searches) to start to get a feel for where and how people are talking about your brand.

http://www.blogpulse.com/

http://blogsearch.google.com

http://www.blogcatalog.com

http://technorati.com/

I would think through the following questions:

1. What are the key items people are talking about over a longer (3-6 month) period? – informing potential key customer drivers, conversation starters and potential pain-points that you can address.

2. Where are they talking? This forms a basis of where you should be listening.

3. Who is talking? Are they are small, specialist and passionate group or is a broader conversation in the community? This can shape how you could start a dialogue.

4. How are they talking? What is the language used? Is it the same as the language you use? Is there a disconnect?

There are also some seriously powerful ongoing social media monitoring tools that you can use as aggregators to efficiently manage this process, for example Radian6 and Collective Intellect.

If you take marketing to its most BASIC principles, it is about discovering what people want and need, and giving it to them.

Right now, there are many people who are in need. Perhaps even more than are in want.

I believe marketing can induce positive social impact in many ways. These are the (arguable) top 3:

1. Spreading the word. Knowledge and understanding are the first steps in creating change. People don’t donate or contribute to a cause if they a) don’t know about it and b) do not understand it.

2. Engaging people. Marketing uses tools to help people connect with brands, companies and organisations. The more engaged people are, the higher propensity they have to donate or volunteer. Each new person who is engaged can then lead to many more eventual contributors.

3. Understanding. Marketers have skill sets developed to understand customers and their potential revenue. This skill set can also be applied to understand the needs of communities and their stakeholders and the potential impact of a project. Instead of potential revenue as a measure, there can be education level achieved, small businesses started or simply happiness! If a country, Bhutan, can do it…

Some amazing, world changing organisations that are using the power of marketing to spread positive change include Kiva, Project H, Ted and Akoha

Or marketing campaigns such as Buy Pink and Red

This thinking is not new. However, I feel that the last people to actually realise this power are marketers themselves.

Do you have any great examples? Disagree? Add your comments!

My respects to them for even attempting to do it, making marketing activities more measurable and focusing on the long term benefits of building a brand for the company value. Both very good things.

My point is not to question their model. My point is to question the influence of brands run by this model. Does a customer care about brand value? Does brand value tell you how a customer is feeling, what their needs are and what they are focusing on next in their lives?

A brand managed by focusing predominantly on brand value is judged on inputs in and inputs out. A brand run by focusing on customers and becoming intimate with their needs and desires develops real connections, real dialogue and as a consequence real loyalty with consumers. That to me is real brand value.

Recently at a trade show I saw this in action, with a stallholder engaging countless new customers with her story and the story about how the products she was selling came about. It was all true, but she realised the power of the story and repeated it with every customer. Yet every customer felt it was the beginning of a unique and personal dialogue. Which, it was, just done in a clever way, designed to fast-track that relationship building. Her impressive sales results were a tribute to that skill!

Also at the show was a very different brand with a different, often younger, take on products. This brand also had a very interesting story of origin, evolution and meaning. This worked well with the younger audience, closer to the experience…but was almost meaningless to the older, more conservative majority of customers.

My learning? You can’t assume that a story is enough. Part of the telling of the story is the people listening, absorbing and placing the stories’ meaning within their own context. It is from that is derived personal meaning and connection. If there is not some element of personal context – the magic of communication and connection doesn’t happen! The story becomes meaningless.

When using the powerful brand lever of stories, consider the audience, their context and tailor the telling for them. The story and message can stay true even when told from a slightly different perspective.

Try it will your next sales call / pitch / meeting / conversation with your wife…and let me know how it goes!