Category Archives: Social Media

Social Consumerism or Sociomerism

Posted on by
Reply

What do you after you buy that uber cool laptop that you had been eyeing for sometime? Open the pack, admire the computer, switch it on, log in and explore?

 

Not really, you actually take a snap of the packaging,  upload it on the social networking sites and enjoy the admiration! The admiration will peak, your social chatter will make you feel good about your buy, and only then will you sit back and enjoy the laptop you bought.

 

In today’s expectation economy where the consumers want to buy the best, they want to boast about it first. This is what I call Sociomerism.

 

Sociomerism is bold new powerful driver of consumer choice. Infact what your social network will say about what you buy almost predisposes the consumers’ choice. In today’s hyper-connected world where social networks define rules of engagement in personal life, they are doing so in brand choices also.

 

While this is a relatively new phenomenon, some maven brands are catching upon this new trend.

 

The Coke honesty commercial is clearly an example of leveraging Sociomerism. As a consumer you are least likely to talk about Coke the brand and the liquid in glowing terms. Who will ever want to upload a picture consuming Coke? Who will ever hear good comments about your love for Coke? But when the same Coke honestly opens up and speak about sugar, obesity and possible ills of the brand, the world doesn’t snigger at them. The world stands up and applauds.

What coke has done is that It had made people talk about Coke the brand, the liquid and people’s love for the brand! This otherwise would not have happened.

 

So why would Sociomerism big and powerful as we move forward? Here are four possible reasons

 

  1. We live in a world of choice saturation. Buying new thing no longer gives the same joy and hearing applause on the choice
  2. Status is the differentiator humans seek. Brands are the equalizer, celebration of choosing the brand is the differentiator
  3. Consumerism is not a good word consumerism cannot be celebrated. Consumer movement is a different ball game. Sociomers will actively seek newer consumer movements to enhance their social status. They will force more and more brands to come out of closet and be Honest.
  4. Sociomers will seek more and more customizing options to drive online chatter. Till now buying was not really a two way street. Buying things did not generate conversations. Today Sociomers want buying to generate chatter. This makes them feel powerful.

 

The younger consumers who are wired differently drive the new experience economy. Merging experiences with ownership is something that comes naturally to them.

 

Brands now have to be ready to face them

 

Original article is published here:http://blog.creamglobal.com/right_brain_left_brain/2013/02/social-consumerism-or-sociomerism.html

Intimate Wash, Insensitive Insights

Posted on by
2

Once upon a time there was a couple who was going through serious marital discord. Then they discovered a ‘Midas’ cream which made intimate parts of woman’s body fairer. After they used the cream they rediscovered their mojo and lived a blissful life. This is roughly what the new “Intimate Wash” promises. Now this brand is available in market, and if you haven’t you can watch the ad here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8phEyKrxBZM.

India has been obsessed with fair skin, since the time the British ruled us. There is a very large category in India that owes its roots to desire of Indians to have lighter skin. For many years, it was women who wanted to be fair, today in this age of metro sexuality; even men have jumped on to the bandwagon. There is nothing wrong if the consumer desires a fairer skin, after all Afghan Snow promised luminous skin much before Fair and Lovely came on stage. The issue is that brands linked fairness to girls getting good grooms, getting success in life or even getting accepted by their fathers as worthy of affection. In a society which is so polarized against girl child, by doing so the brands have only helped the desire for fair skin become mainstream. In the process the brands have heightened the colour divide. Here was an opportunity where the brands could have fulfilled their greater role towards society by being responsive and sensitive. Instead we have brands that promise fairness of all kinds making us cringe with disgust

ImageImage

Then there is this global car brand that promoted its iconic car in India as the most ‘expensive wedding gift’ for your daughter.  The finest silk, the most beautiful jewelry and the most spectacular wedding wouldn’t have made the wedding memorable, if the father didn’t gift his daughter the curvy ‘yellow one’. The print ad promises that it is best gifted as it is ‘fittingly expensive’. In case you haven’t guessed it, here’s where to find them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8NM3VEMp48

Weddings and dowry are very much a part of popular culture. It is that part of culture that we all can do without. Incidentally dowry is outlawed in India and therefore promoting ‘expensive gift’ for wedding does fall in the grey zone of being illegal. The issue is not of legality, the issue is of sensitivity. By being insensitive to sacred institution of wedding, the brand almost certainly misses being liked or loved. Mercifully, while the whole category of fairness cream sold fair is better, the automobile category did not follow gift an expensive car for dowry as an insight

There also this telecom brand that uses a dog first as cupid, then as voyeur and finally as the guard, to let a young couple meet, serenade and fall in love. The only hitch in the tale is the fact that the young couple is just two preteen children, who may not know the meaning of all the dog does, and definitely leaves the moms queasy. What has a telecom brand got to do with them is another matter of debate altogether.

The usual defense of this too has been that this is happening in the society around us. This is exactly the reason why the brand should have stayed away from giving a romantic angle. The fact is that children make friends easily; they are without prejudices and find joys in new connections. How much warmer the brand would have been if the two preteen children would have been used with sensitivity and care in brand communication

These are not three isolated examples of brands that have bordered on being insensitive. There are a lot of ads today on media which often cross the line of being responsible in order to push a commercial message. The usual defense that these are insights of today may be right, but should the insights be used without being evaluated with sincerity, empathy and responsibility?

Communication has the power to shape society, and we must remember that. Otherwise in these days of connected consumers, the backlash would be hard and fast. These three brands are surely a testimony to that.

Road Ahead For Media Planners

Posted on by
1

The Original Article

Future is always complex. Predicting future is fraught with danger. Chances of getting future wrong are bright. However future is always built on contexts that are current. Future is always shaped by the challenges faced in present.

There is a lot happening in our world at this time. Technology is progressing at a pace that is hard to keep track of. Just for example in last three years the mobile penetration has doubled, homes with digital TV subscription have gone up exponentially; the FM stations have moved from metros to class one and class two towns. The changes are not just tech driven.  The demographic changes are re-crafting the entire society. The rapid urbanization is throwing up challenges not faced before. There are no indicators suggesting that the speed of change will slow down or the transformation is eased off.

Here are three challenges that we are likely to face in coming years. First is the challenge of nomadic audiences.  Second the challenge of contexts. Last is the challenge of measurement.

Challenge of Nomadic Audiences

Media planning and buying is dependent on a set of audience being available to receive the message. The process of enumeration assumes that the audience is stationary, and once counted is always available. In today’s technology empowered scenario, the audience is not stationary. Rapid adoption of net enabled personal devices like tablets is making media portable. This has serious implications. It means that mass media will get empowered by personal media. It means that that notion of fixed audience will have to shelved. It means that media buyers will have to find a way of synthesizing the broadcast media with new age portable media. Nomadic audiences and personal portable media are forces that have will permanently change the media landscape

Challenge of contexts

Let’s take this rise of portable personal media and the possible stagnation of traditional mass media forward. Till now the media planning was built on increasing salience, so that it impacted interest in brand so that it lead to positive action on retail point. This is straight forward and linear in approach. This has delivered great results for brands. Today, the entire context of brand consumption is changing. Salience matters and salience impacts the interest in a brand, but from here on two new forces comes into play. The personal portable media is the transformational force. It makes Search and Share more important than mere Action of the traditional AIDA theory. Today everything is searchable, and people share everything. We know that this peer to peer network has an amazing power to influence brand choices. This change in context is already a reality and will only grow in future.

Challenge of measurement

The concept of fixed audience is ingrained in the existing media measurement systems. With the nomadic audience and the rise of personal portable medium will require a new type of measurement system to be created. Media agencies have tended to merge TV with online TV, press with Digital media and events with outdoors. Tomorrow they will have to find a system of one composite measurement that merges the traditional with new. The search and share impact on brands health will have a far greater bearing than mere rise or drop in reach and salience

Future is complex, and it is often not possible to predict it with certainty, but the present has a way of showing the impending challenges. We need to be prepared

Published in 4Ps of Business and Marketing, November 4th, 2011 Issue

Only the connected thrive

Posted on by
Reply

Need to be socially connected is an age old emotional need.  History of human communication is almost 50,000 year old. It has helped mankind spread from Africa to all over the globe. Possibly the drums were the first machines that humans used for communication. Now from pigeons to horseback carriers to electrically modulated sound waves has transformed into mobile phones.

Today the mobile phone as a category is the fastest growing category in the world. Mobile phones are changing the contours of human communication. Already mobile phones have transcended the barriers of personal space and are creating a new form of global brotherhood. May be it’s the mobile phones that is making the world flat and not the computers.

Clearly the mobile culture is moving from margins to mainstream. The adoption of sms, chats and social networking sites are applications that are finding resonance with consumers. Possibly for the first time in human evolution, adoption of technology is outpacing the evolution of technology

The biggest example of this is the incident where a techie live tweeted the attack on Osama hideout, and then in US the news broke first on Twitter than on either network TV or on news websites. This is giving rise to what can be called as ‘Connection Economy’

The Connection Economy is a powerful new force that will redefine the way brands approach consumers and the way consumers engage with brands. There are two powerful trends that define this new Connection Economy. These are “connected life”, “connected identities” . These two are giving rise to what can only be called as “connected markets”

Connected Life is a function of a unique social space that mobile devices create. The fact is that the old cliché of life in your hands is actually true. Peers, family, friends all live together in a virtual space, where the user defines the rules of engagement. This availability of connections on demand creates a sense of joy and gives a sense of huge excitement. It makes every person in the connected space feel far more potent and powerful.

Connected Identities This trend carries contra behavior trend. It has two opposing patterns that define the connected identities. One is the process of individualizing the connection. This includes what can be called the status messages and even customizing phones. The other pattern is evolving common identities. Through common identity the gangs and groups acquire a powerful meaning. This is where the deepest emotions and drivers come alive

Connected Markets is a powerful new driver of business and brands. The connection impacts how the brands connect with consumers and also how consumers connect with brands. Consider this; the group buying deals that are now popular in the virtual space are connected consumers redefining pricing equations.

Again as it has happened with technology where adoption has beaten technology, the connected economy evolution has outpaced the adoption from brands. Our recent research clearly points the gap that exist between what the connected consumers desires from the disconnected brands.

The funny thing is, by the time the brands learn the tricks, consumers would have moved on to a new space. Today its clear, if the brands have to thrive, they have to connect. That is a true challenge

Published in Pitch Magazine, June 2011

Lessons from Reality TV

Posted on by
1

Some reality TV shows have been asked to be broadcast after 11 pm by the ministry of information and broadcasting, based on public outcry on vulgarity and abusive language in the shows.

In times when the television has replaced the erstwhile joint family’s grandfather as the grand storyteller of life and its lessons, of values and popular culture, it may be moot to take a look at what people derive from the facts and fiction that television brings to their living rooms. After all, every evening, families across India do gather around their TV sets.

There are lessons – good and bad – that people could be deriving from a host of reality shows such as Bigg Boss 4, MasterChef India and, say, Kaun Banega Crorepati 4, all ongoing shows. These are randomly named and in no way mean that the other reality shows have nothing to teach us.

There are four potentially harmful lessons to be learnt. First, that it pays to be bad. The louder you are, the crasser you are, the greater your fan following. Politeness and compassion are out. Second, that it pays to be self-centered. It is fine to speak the language of ‘I, me, and myself’ if you are anchoring a show – there’s no need for consideration for others or respect for their skills.

Third, that you should never try to separate fact from fiction. It’s all right to add drama to some mundane, perfectly normal everyday situations. When you add such drama, you become a media star. Every channel follows you, wants your opinion on everything and it may even land you your own TV show.

Fourth, that relationships are a matter of convenience. What’s good today may not be good tomorrow. You must constantly evaluate your relationships to see what works for the moment. It’s perfectly fine to switch sides if it works for you.

Fortunately, in midst of a host of reality shows that teach dangerous lessons, there is a show that teaches lessons of humility, politeness, respect and compassion. The fact that the lessons of humility and politeness come from India’s biggest movie icon, only add to overall weight of the lessons.  The fact that his shows are pulling more eyeballs than any other show tells that people do hold old world values in high regard and don’t get swayed by attention-grabbing gimmicks.

All this has implications not only on the emerging popular culture but also on brands. All brands are a function of two contexts: the content of brands and the environment in which they live. Brands control their content, and leverage the environment. If a brand lives in the right environment, it creates the right feeling about itself. If it lives in the wrong environment, it weakens and can eventually destroy its own equity.

There are many brands that are riding on the TV reality shows. They are present either as sponsors, or as advertisers in the commercial breaks, or in programme placements. If a brand appears in an environment where the values propounded by the show are contrary to what the brand stands for, should it evaluate its presence? Brands go to great lengths to test their creative content, measure their advertising impact, and track their efficacy. Maybe it is time they also added the effect of environment on themselves.

So, will brands ever do that? Rise above the ordinary and take a wider responsibility? Or will we, as consumers, have to trigger the change?

 

Published in Hindustan Times 22.10.2010

Enter the Curator

Posted on by
2

It is believed that in the age of social media expertise is a rare commodity. Expertise comes from having a considered opinion that the world buys into. Today everyone has an opinion, and everyone can express them with ease. The consumer is becoming an expert and the experts are facing survival blues.
Is this really true? Consider this, a movie critic watches a movie and posts his review on his blog. The viewers who visit the blog add their comments on the review. The expert in this case does not have to wait long to figure out how his viewers are reacting to his reviews? The next time he writes the review, the existing feedback helps him to be sharper and more connected in his review
Now is this consumer generated content or expert generated media? The expert generated media obviously is far more interesting phenomenon than consumer generated media.
In case of the movie critic for example, the critic is not someone who has seen a few movies. More likely he or she lives movies, knows the process of making movies, and possibly has an insight on making movies more engaging. The dynamic feedback that the audience provides allows the expert to tell a more engaging tale.
Yes this is the world of collaborative co creation. Yet the collaborative co creation is not diminishing the value or role of expertise, it’s actually enhancing it. This is where the expert generated media has a role to play. This process is a curative process
Curation is a process that comes from the world of art museums, but is increasingly becoming important in the world of brands. Views, opinions, feedbacks etc are all chosen, sorted and organized by people who are experts equipped with necessary knowledge and experience. By leveraging the experience and knowledge the curaters can help brands connect better with its consumers.
Planners need to actively act as curaters to stay relevant in these changing times. The traditional ways of gathering consumer insights are outdated, and they rarely work. The planners can act as enhancers of consumer experiences by acting like a curator
Curation of opinions allows the experts to add more depth to the context. It allows the experts to step into their shoes, know their opinions, become more connected and be closer to the subject. It actually lets the expert even mold the opinion. That is truly what an expert would want to do. This is what a planner always has to do.
Experts curate and cull out best, clearest and the most thought provocating arguments. An average consumer will rarely want to read every opinion that is written about the subject. This is what a planner does constantly, sort and collect. Than cull out what matters and make it work for the brand.
Curation of opinion can shift the balance back to brands. In this collaborative world creating content is easy, but gathering and presenting is the real challenge. Consumers may value another consumers’ opinion more than advertising, but by no means is an average consumers’ opinion the final word. Therein lays the real opportunity. Planners are experts; they now need to be curative experts
Published in Brand Wagon, 9th November, 2010

There’s nothing Rajini Kant!

Posted on by
1

There is this incredible joke going around on Raijnikanth: Ladies and Gentlemen the most coveted Rajnikanth Award goes to….
Oscars!!!
Ever since Enthiran/Robot has been released there has been an incredible amount of Rajini jokes that have been going around. On the web, on social networking sites, on sms, everywhere the current reigning topic is the latest Rajini joke. Rajini jokes are today the best conversation starters.
There is something very interesting about this whole Rajnikanth saga. Every single joke that is going around is complimentary towards Rajinikanth. They are funny, yes, they also eulogize him. It adds to the overall brand appeal of Rajinikanth. People take immense pride in sharing the latest Rajini jokes with each other. So every Rajini joke also adds to cool quotient of the narrator. In a society where jokes often tend to slip either into bathroom humor kind of category or into crassness, the positivity in the jokes is a remarkable phenomenon.
Possibly Rajnikanth today is a truly crowd sourced brand. Made by fans. To make more fans. If there was any way of quantifying than I am sure, Rajnikanth has more fans in 4 months, than any time ever before.
One of the reasons, why the tone of Rajinikanth jokes is complimentary towards him is because his fans truly idolize him. And they idolize not just his screen persona, but his real self. He is not mere Rajinikanth for them, he is Rajini Saar. Possibly this is because the real Rajinikanth is far more real and relatable than the on screen Rajnikanth and that immensely adds to the persona. The respect than gets translated into unabashed admiration for the man, that we are seeing across all the jokes that are going around.
There is a lot that Rajini Saar in his inimitable style can teach all of us in marketing and communication. Here are 5 possible reasons.
One: Crowd sourcing works, and how. Crowd sourcing does not destroy brand value, it does not diminish the brand equity. If you truly let the crowd control your brand, and if the crowd loves your brand they will make sure that the story of the brand is told well
Two: Like it or not, crowd sourcing will happen. It cannot be controlled; it currently is on its way to become mainstream culture. We as owners of brand will be better off acting as catalysts and not as inhibitors.
Three: crowd sourcing can actually improve your brand in ways you cannot imagine. There is a variety of inputs that comes from crowd, and if you as brand owners are willing to accept, filter and broadcast what is right for the brand, it will make the brand better.
Four: Crowd sourcing can revitalize your brand and fill it with new vitality. What crowd sourcing has done for Rajini brand can be done for any brand. It has made the brand Rajini one of the buzziest brand of our times. Agreed that the Rajini brand has enough in it to spark off the buzz, but than most brands do have enough in them to start a buzz.
Five: To make the entire crowd sourcing effort work, nurture the crowd. There would be times when the brand will not like what the crowd does. Chime in, have a dialogue and together fix the issue. Rajini brand managers could have killed the entire wave of jokes, or they could have curated them. Curating the crowd’s opinion always works better
So if Rajini can, why can’t we?

Alone and aloof or crowded and connected?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the best status messages I have come cross on Facebook says “the only place where it is cool to talk to a wall.” This reflects the popular predictions that pundits have often made about the generation that loves to be online. They have always argued that the online habits will turn a whole generation into antisocial isolated zombies. And that the Google enabled world will make everyone ‘search’ for bite sized info as the appetite for discovering new things will go down tremendously.

Has it really happened?

Dan Tapscott in his book “Grown Up Digital” has debunked many of these popular predictions. He calls this multi tasking, living in multiple dimension generation as Net Generation. He goes on to explain that in order to understand what the future holds we need to understand the Net Generation. He debunks the theory about short attention spans and zero social skills. He terms the Net Generation as remarkably bright community, which has developed revolutionary new ways of thinking, interacting, working, and socializing.

Popular trend watchers have now started to speak about a new trend of ‘mass mingling’ where the net generation will live simultaneously in real and virtual world and make both the worlds meaningful and engaging.

So is technology making people alone and isolated or is technology enabling them to be connected and engaged?

Technology actually has moved to a new level. Version 2.0 of net is not PC but on the mobile. The very basis of the aloof argument has been turned on its head. So now your friends, connections, appointments, and possibly emotions always travel with you.

The basic insight of people wanting to be connected has not changed. It’s this need for connection that had driven 500 Million people to be on Facebook, Twitter, My Space, Four Square, Google Wave etc. and through the act of status updates, feeds, blogs, pictures and interests they broadcast their desire to find new connections. The invariably find new connections and friends through common interests, hobbies, opinions and practices. It doesn’t stop in virtual space only. Look at your Facebook page and see how many event invites are there. By attending any such event people have proactively connected with a bunch of common interest friends in real world. So instead of making the net generation socially challenged, it made them socially active and eclectic.

This version 2.0 of internet may spark off four dominant trends, here’s a look at all four of them

Go out often: Technology has made finding interesting place around the cities easier than ever. Places can not only be discovered, but also is commented upon. This will encourage people to explore their world more. This means people will eat out more often but at a far larger number of places than ever before.

Get bitten by wanderlust: The constant feed of holiday pictures from a variety of locations will encourage people to pack their bags and discover their world more often. The normal holiday hotspots will make way for newer more exotic destinations. May be tourism boards need to revisit the very motivations of travel

Niche will get powered by mainstream: The niche performers, products, brands, bands will increasingly get access to mainstream audiences as customers will become patrons and interest groups will broadcast their approval to a wider set of audience

The world will become large: the world instead of becoming a global village will actually become a very large thriving vibrant mega polis. This will mean more people to meet, more things to do, more smells to savour, more connections to be made.

This is a very interesting transformation that we will see all around us. A generation that was supposed to be socially challenged will challenge the norms of social connectivity.

Published in 4Ps of Marketing, July 15th 2010 issue

Bhopal and changing India

Posted on by
5

December 2 1984 is a date that whole of India can never forget. It is on the night of December 2 that the gas leaked from Union Carbide Plant. It is the worst industrial disaster that the world has ever seen. Over 500000 people got exposed to the gas. There is no unanimity on number of dead, it could be between 2500 that the authorities say or 15000 as independent observers say. The world has never witnessed an industrial tragedy of this magnitude

And it’s been 25 years and the case drags on. In these 25 years much has happened. India has seen 5 different Prime Ministers, the state of MP has seen six different chief ministers, the case has dragged on, and the victims wait for relief and compensation. 25 years is a long time

Now I am not building the argument about the case. Everything that has happened till now on the case has been wrong and unjust. Let’s leave it at that just for a while. Let’s look at what has changed in India in last 25 years. Let’s look at India through this prism.

The India of 1984 was a very different India. It was an angry India, and it was an unsure India. Our economy had just started to find its groove; the wave of growth had just started to build. We were not the confident optimistic nation that we have started to become now. May be it was this lack of confidence and lack of trust in ourselves that we let Warren Anderson leave India. May be this was the reason the amount of compensation sought from Union Carbide was paltry.

The country was aghast at what had happened then. The students in colleges protested, the civil society raised its voice, the news papers kept at it and piled on pressure, but eventually the issue faded from active consciousness of the nation. The society in those days had no way of keeping the whole issue alive for a long period of time.

Now, in 2010 when the final judgment on the case has been pronounced the country is nothing like what it was in 1984. India now is a much more assured country in its own right. We are sure of ourselves and brimming with confidence. We are optimistic of our future and know we will make tomorrow brighter. The economy has transformed dramatically, we are a service economy now. In 1984 we looked at World Bank and IMF and they dictated our economic policy. In 2010 the world is looking at India to drive them out of the clutches of recession.

The changes are deeper than macroeconomic in nature. The media is far more widespread. The access to media has gone up many folds. In 1984 we took to streets to protest. The protests were seen as a law and order problem more than the reflection of ground reality. Today the anger and disappointment has been empowered by social media. The protest are no longer on a few streets, it’s everywhere. The protest are no longer restricted to a few people, they involve a much wider audience. The protests then were spontaneous reactions that die down as anger subsides. The protests now can be sustained drive a deeper change. The media today is powered by social media and together they are a potent force, a force that can truly change the fate of victims of Bhopal

And that is the real issue. The tragedy of Bhopal cannot be reversed. But it should not remain a tragedy that affects a small set of people. If we as consumers can use our power to drive changes in brands, communication and social culture than the power should be put to proper use. The true test of social media is here. If we can together drive a change, social media will truly come to life, or else it will remain one of those things that are fashionable to know, but is of little value.

Bhopal and the tragedy should be a turning point in the history of social media. Will it stand up to the test?

Published at http://www.mediaworldbuzz.com

Credibility and authenticity

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous column I had argued that credibility and authenticity are the two key areas where the brands will face a big issue. Especially when the lines between public and private spaces are blurring at a rapid pace. Brands too have kept a marked distinction between private space and public space. And the brands will want to keep it that way, as this allows them to ‘control’ the communication, show the good face and create the right impression. Obviously social media is putting pressure on them to blur this distinction. Let me illustrate this through two examples and two contrasting strategies that brands followed. One worked very well, the other never weathered the storm The first example is from Domino’s. Two of its employees posted seriously grossed out videos over the net of them spoiling the pizza. If you have the stomach for it, you can access them at you tube. No wonder there was outrage over what the two employees had done. The response from the brand was swift and they allowed it to be played out over social media where it started from. The brand apologized and uploaded apology videos on you tube. It also took penal action against the two employees for destroying the reputation and trust of the brand. The blog sphere initially ridiculed the brand but came around to champion the brand’s cause. The second example is of Nestle and the pressure it from Greenpeace for using Palm oil in its chocolates. When Greenpeace uploaded videos on you tube accusing the corporation of destroying rain forests, the world of social media went into overdrive. The brand first bullied the sites and got the video removed, and then it also removed ‘offensive’ comments from other sites. The controversy soon became a firestorm that singed the brand. Even after pledging that it is snapping ties from tainted palm oil suppliers, the firestorm kept on raging. Clearly the strong arm tactics of a big brand did not help and it only further fuelled the fire Both these are examples of how the boundaries between private and public space is diminishing. In both cases the trouble started when the private space became public. In one case the insiders demolished the line, and in other a pressure group forced the brand to let the private space become public. I am not saying if this was right or wrong, all I am saying is that this seems to be the new way. In the case Domino’s the brand narrated a story of credibility. It acknowledged the problem, addressed the issue, allowed people to peep into the private space of the brand and didn’t hide behind the curtains. The consumers believed in the authenticity of the story and reposed their trust in the brand. In today’s world where consumers play voyeurs a peep inside was a great way to regain trust. In case of Nestle, the brand told a story that wasn’t authentic. Instead of allowing a peep in, it hid behind dark curtains. It made it difficult for consumers to see what really was happening. By the time it allowed the public to peep in, much of the damage was done. And because the story was not authentic the story was never credible. Despite being a large and respected brand, it decided to be bully and not an engaging story teller. The best example of this diminishing line is the new Nike communication where the Facebook fans of the brand were accorded ‘insider’ status. Nike unveiled its “write the future’ campaign to Facebook fans before it took to mass media. Over 100,000 fans saw the three minute ad before it was aired. Nike allowed access to its fans to not only the brand story, but also the key characters of the story i.e. the iconic footballers. In this new paradigm where brands need to be great story tellers, brands have to be about authenticity and credibility. It is not that this is necessary in this day and age of social media only. Social media may not be the in thing tomorrow, authenticity and credibility will always be the currency for the brand to transact in.

Published in 4Ps of Marketing and Advertising, 4rth June, 2010