A Map Of Social (Network) Dominance
Posted using ShareThis
How To Restore An Iconic Brand
1 week ago
Showing posts with label digital stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital stuff. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
what politics can teach to brands
"campaigns in a web 2.0 world". Interesting article from the New York times (thanks gianni for posting about it), reflects on how web 2.0 (whatever that means) has been a key medium in this US presidential campaign. It seems that some of the key tactics of both campaigns have been:
- to disseminate content via many online channels (websites, youtube, facebook);
- to offer online more content of a richer nature than elsewhere;
- to offer people many ways to consume content (read, watch, own, distribute).
Once again, I can't help thinking that brands should do the same: abandon their strict policy of content ownership and make (more/ special) content accessible via many platforms. Yes they would have to relinquish a bit of control but would get in exchange tons consumer advocacy (look at the amount of facebook advocacy that the obama campaign is receiving these days!). This should then in turn convert into improved brand equity (improved brand awareness + stronger brand associations) and therefore brand equity should be the metric upon which to measure success.
food for (my own) thoughts
- to disseminate content via many online channels (websites, youtube, facebook);
- to offer online more content of a richer nature than elsewhere;
- to offer people many ways to consume content (read, watch, own, distribute).
Once again, I can't help thinking that brands should do the same: abandon their strict policy of content ownership and make (more/ special) content accessible via many platforms. Yes they would have to relinquish a bit of control but would get in exchange tons consumer advocacy (look at the amount of facebook advocacy that the obama campaign is receiving these days!). This should then in turn convert into improved brand equity (improved brand awareness + stronger brand associations) and therefore brand equity should be the metric upon which to measure success.
food for (my own) thoughts
Friday, 24 October 2008
Diesel builds brand equity by relinquishing control over logo
A few folks in the office are keeping an eye Diesel, who are running a contest in which consumers are invited to redesign their logo.
Some people are raising concerns around ownership, particularly from a legal perspective (it "will have them loose any possibility to defend themselves against logo infringements later on"). I see the point, but I personally think this is a great way to relinquish some (=little) control over your brand in exchange for tons of consumer engagement.
Also, I like how the contest is centered around the '55 seconds' concept. In other words, by asking people to redesign its logo around a specific concept, Diesel are strengthening a specific brand association and ultimately improving brand equity. It reminds me of the 'brand next' philosophy that WolffOlins came up with earlier in the year.
Some people are raising concerns around ownership, particularly from a legal perspective (it "will have them loose any possibility to defend themselves against logo infringements later on"). I see the point, but I personally think this is a great way to relinquish some (=little) control over your brand in exchange for tons of consumer engagement.
Also, I like how the contest is centered around the '55 seconds' concept. In other words, by asking people to redesign its logo around a specific concept, Diesel are strengthening a specific brand association and ultimately improving brand equity. It reminds me of the 'brand next' philosophy that WolffOlins came up with earlier in the year.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Friday, 10 October 2008
Be first. Be fastest
My first Nike campaign is live. See Nike Store or go straight here.
so many things I would have done differently, but at the same time kinda proud.
so many things I would have done differently, but at the same time kinda proud.
Friday, 3 October 2008
click here, I beg you!
For some reason there is a breed of marketers out there who insists that banners (online ads) should have a big bold blinking 'click here' callout at the bottom. I am seriously beginning to be annoyed by this.
Research, they say, suggests that by having such an annoying blinking thing increases consumers' propensity to notice the ad (and therefore to click on it). This makes sense: any moving object on a page will catch your attention.
Actually any moving object will attract your attention. It's a survival instinct: if you are walking in the street and a moving car is about to hit you, your eyes will isolate that that moving object from the background and your brain will tell your legs to jump out of the way.
However, I would argue that an ad that is very effective at attracting your attention isn't necessarily a good ad. Things that attract your attention aren't necessarily things that you wold like or buy. If my ugly neighbour started walking naked in the garden, I wouldn't necessarily like him.
And here is my point: as a consumer I am increasingly annoyed by flashy, blinking online creative that tells me to 'click here'. I find it patronizing. It insults my intelligence and distracts me from what I am doing.
Good advertising should be effective because it understands consumers and offers an answer to their need. Get this right and you won't have to beg for a click.
Bottom line: I am amazed that one little piece of stinking research can cause marketers to spend 90% of their time thinking how fast and big their 'click here' should blink, and only 10% of their time trying to understand their consumer.
Research, they say, suggests that by having such an annoying blinking thing increases consumers' propensity to notice the ad (and therefore to click on it). This makes sense: any moving object on a page will catch your attention.
Actually any moving object will attract your attention. It's a survival instinct: if you are walking in the street and a moving car is about to hit you, your eyes will isolate that that moving object from the background and your brain will tell your legs to jump out of the way.
However, I would argue that an ad that is very effective at attracting your attention isn't necessarily a good ad. Things that attract your attention aren't necessarily things that you wold like or buy. If my ugly neighbour started walking naked in the garden, I wouldn't necessarily like him.
And here is my point: as a consumer I am increasingly annoyed by flashy, blinking online creative that tells me to 'click here'. I find it patronizing. It insults my intelligence and distracts me from what I am doing.
Good advertising should be effective because it understands consumers and offers an answer to their need. Get this right and you won't have to beg for a click.
Bottom line: I am amazed that one little piece of stinking research can cause marketers to spend 90% of their time thinking how fast and big their 'click here' should blink, and only 10% of their time trying to understand their consumer.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
