marginally subversive

It's all about the experience...

I stumbled upon this interesting slide show on content marketing - at least that's how it was labeled on SlideShow.Com.  However, I think that it does cover more than just content marketing as a discipline.  It covers a far bigger, far richer view of the consumers' experience-sphere - and how brands can make/unmake their positions within this circle.

It's all about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands - that's the raison d'etre of media, channel, and messaging experts.  It's not about buying a TV ad or a print ad or a banner ad in some number 1 portal somewhere.  It's not about buying search keywords and optimizing them to the hilt.

It's about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands.

And I honestly think that content marketing - what used to be called (or is it still called?) "branded content and sponsorships" (though I think it's far more than that) - is one pillar that is currently underutilized in the media planning industry.

A lot of clients that I have spoken to about this have just one reply: "We are not a publishing company".  To which I say, "... but the mere fact that you are creating ads, buying media to send those messages into the market, and getting PR people and CRM writers to create campaigns - contents, essentially - don't these make you a publishing company?"

 

Content Marketing = Brand New Marketing?

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: media interactive)

Brands as Destinations

I was just thinking about 'destinations as Brands'.  The Hiltons and Conrad Hotels (which by the way are still tops on my list), Sheratons, and JW Marriotts.  Then started thinking about "countries as brands" - Singapore, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the Philippines, Malaysia.  And then the brands that take you there - Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Northwest, Emirates... - all of which are not entirely 'destinations' but surely are 'brands'.

Then my brain flipped:  How about thinking of it inversely - "brands as destinations"?  Does it hold?

Come to think of it:  some companies have called the 'retail space communications' as "the last mile that will make or break the deal between the brand and the consumer".  Some have thought of the "consumers' journey" or "path to a purchase".

From these, it seems then possible that "brands are destinations" in and of themselves, regardless of what categories they belong in.

But what would a brand as a destination be?

Hmmm.

For Coke: That sizzle, that 'bite' at the back of the throat that refreshes and gives me a break - however simple and short from the hassle of daily work.
For Kiehl's and Gillette 5Blade (whatever it is called) Shaver:  That smooth shave in the morning - with the minty, tingly feeling after.
For Mac:  That "can't wait any longer gotta be on my Mac" feeling every single night - in spite of being tired.
For my Sony PSP:  That "can't wait to advance to the next level and earn my black belt - even if it's only virtually" experience.
For the good old, H&L Milk in my fridge: That "please, I want to sleep now" feeling.

It seems possible.  And it could well be true.

Brands in themselves are destinations for consumers.  Brands are not just the tangible aspect of a 'product' - but also the emotional responses that a certain experience evokes out of and with the consumer.

Hmm.

LinkedIn versus Facebook: Shall they ever meet - and compete?

Will we ever see LinkedIn and Facebook meeting - and competing?

There is a view that most would have a Facebook account for 'fun' and LinkedIn for a more serious, professional image.  That's what I do, too.  I think - though - that there is more to LinkedIn that just that.

I have used LinkedIn to be heard - one of the major sources of traffic to my blog Marginally Subversive is my LinkedIn profile.  I have had projects - and job inquiries - on LinkedIn, and I have also established 'connections' (for lack of a better term) with other professionals in my field and with people who I would not have had a chance to connect with in the real, flesh-and-blood world.  I have, for example, academicians in my extended network - people who have accepted my request to connect for the purpose of perhaps, helping me out in the future when I hit a snag in my academic quests or projects.

LinkedIn's two-pronged strategy of generating revenues through subscriptions and through ads is interesting.  But I think there is more to that:  sure, LinkedIn's probably limited in terms of its inventory and its ability to deploy ads (i.e., it doesn't have Google's Ad-serving strength), but the quality of the people who are in LinkedIn is significantly higher than any other social network that I know of.

That's the beauty of social networks - the value of social networks do not rely on mere "quantity" and "breadth" or number of users.  The value of social networks is also based on the quality of its users.

Look at Facebook:  Its exclusivity to university students was what made it interesting and unique.  Now that anybody can have a Facebook account, its sexiness has gone - and it has gone the way of "portals" and "search ads".

LinkedIn's business model is by no means perfect.  But it is teeming with opportunities.  However, it should be careful with how it evolves.  Its users are what make LinkedIn precious - and I hope (as a user) they don't evolve into another "too-ad-driven" site.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: LinkedIn, Social Networking, Social Web, Digital Web, Digital Advertising, Digital Models, Business Models, Strategic Planning

marginally subversive thought of the day

People don't care about the technologies that they are using - they care about the brands that these technologies are powering. 

The brand promises - and engenders hope; the technology delivers.  If the technology does not deliver, the brand gets spanked.  If the brand does not deliver, the technology - no matter how good it is or how superior it is against its competition - won't survive.

Think MSN's Live Search - or better yet, Yahoo Search versus Google Search.  We can safely assume that all three are 'good' search engines - with the backing of great software engineers, academicians, algorithm designers, and specialists.  But why does Google dominate?  How did "Google it" become an intelligible sentence?  How did "Google" become a verb?

Or Creative Technology's ZEN products versus Apple's iPod.
Or Dell versus Sony Vaio versus HP versus Gateway versus Asus?

The brand creates the promise - that the technology behidn the brand does and will deliver.  The brand opens the door for technology to do its work.  If the technology behind the brand sucks, the brand suffers.

But it is the brand that starts it all.  And to paraphrase my former professor in Cognitive Psych would have said: No brand, never mind.