Branding, Mobile & Marketing Essentials

Windows8 is still searching for its USP

2013-03-10T15:51:00.001+01:00

OMG the PC business is tanking. The likes of HP and Dell are suffering. Really too bad, how come actually and should we be worried? These interesting questions are in my opinion easier to answer than most think. How about: the days of the PC are over, we won't need powerful desktop machines any longer, unless you are in the video or sound recording business. Come on guys accept it, the desktop PC is a dead horse and we should be happy.

The last time I bought a desktop PC was in 2004. It was a huge machine, can't remember the processor speed, the hard disk size nor the RAM memory but it had one thing that impressed everyone; 3 SVGA screens.

So yes, it looked the part in my small recording studio. It had a DVD-R drive, way ahead of most other PC's. I never ever recorded anything on it though. But then I moved on professionally and privately and my mobile lifestyle started with a Dell laptop that was surprisingly powerful.

Since then I never ever considered going back to having a desktop PC. The stuff I do, word processing, surfing on the web, Powerpoint presentations and so on and so forth do not require a powerful machine. On top of that I switched professionally from a lamentable experience consisting of a laptop PC with Windows Vista to a MacBook Pro and I swear, I will never go back again, unless Apple turns into the next Microsoft.

So back to the desktop PC topic. This type of machine was meant to help you executing tasks. Specifically for video and audio recording and editing local processor power is very important. But how many of us actually do this? Without knowing the actual numbers I'd say that at least 80% of the all the computer users never ever need the full processing power available today.

Even better, most of what we need to achieve is possible on pretty much any laptop or ultrabook if you must. If you then look at the convenience of the laptop form factor one really wonders why you would ever buy a clumsy desktop PC. Even if you need an additional large screen all laptops today have a graphics card that allows you to connect a massively big external screen that will satisfy most users. Ok, I don't know about three screens but hey, isn't that what Thunderbolt would allow?

So back to Windows8, what is its USP actually? Touch screen support? Interesting enough few people know that this is a standard feature of Windows7. It has a few drawbacks when you use it on a touch screen since some interactions are optimized for classic mouse-clicking. But other than that it generally just works.

The Windows8 tiles are nice at first but the value add of having an overview on one screen of your activities is exaggerated. Most of the programs running on Windows8 do not really match this User Interface paradigm, at least not yet and after using it a while, I found myself actually switching back to the classic interface. The reason for this might be that I'm so much used to this that I feel I'm getting quicker to what I need. Maybe a younger generation will prefer the Tiles, no idea.

That I'm not the only one switching back to the 'classic' Windows interface, is confirmed by IDC Analyst Bob O'Donell in this article. Also recently Jun Dong-soo, Samsung's head of memory business, stated that the poor attach rate for ultrabooks is linked to Microsoft's "less competitive Windows platform". He predicted this and took the decision to focus on memory for mobile a while ago. We can simply say today that this decision has more than paid off for Samsung.

On a tablet Windows8 may have its charms compared to iOS but in trying to be different it comes with drawbacks, specifically when it comes to speed and smoothness of the experience.

But what is really disappointing is the Search function in Windows8. Although its a leap forward compared to Windows7 and all previous iterations, it still can't match the sheer powerful elegance of Spotlight MacOS. The most important key-combination for me every day (cmd + spacebar), gets me Google-like quick to everything on my laptop.

For Microsoft I guess times are changing, to stay ahead of the change from desktop PC's to mobile, a super nice UI doesn't make the cut it. What does? Search, voice command even eye-tracking comes to mind. Although Microsoft has exciting things like Kinect among its offerings and it has a SDK available, suggesting that it will be part of Windows in the future, I am still not convinced that the integration will be as elegant as we're used to have from Apple, specifically from the times where Steve Jobs was still at the helm.

Thanks for reading my blog.

Matt

The Working from Home Discussion is somewhat pointless

2013-03-07T16:51:00.000+01:00

At first I couldn't believe that Marissa Mayer's simple decision to stop the Yahoo employees from woking from home would lead to such a hefty discussion on the web. Working from home is certainly a great concept but like with so many other things should be used with moderation. She's an experienced manager and from what I read it's clear to me that she had to turn a derailed working culture around.

If you read the Memo she sent it is clear that her focus is on restoring team-work. Apparently the feeling of achieving a goal together got lost and she decided that the only way to restore team-work and foster team-spirit is to simply make sure that the employees work closely together.

All the arguments about how communication technology have make working from home a viable alternative do not adress the value-add of working together while being physically in one space.

Working with people in one space or room allows to closely manage the outcome and check productivity. It ultimately ensures that there are ongoing checks and balances regarding the company's direction. That in turn contributes to quality and efficiency. If a company's employees lose a sense of direction, this immediate costs in terms of quality and inefficiency are enormous. The costs to turn this around, as we see currently happening at Yahoo!, can be substantial as well.

My view on this is simple:
- Foster team-work when a company is in a situation of crisis and change. In this case you need short communication lines and regular meetings to establish a sense of urgency and manage change.
- Allow working from home when the change is over and limit it to a 20% home, vs 80% office work.

Only if you are in a business where team-work is much less important, e.g. in translations, the amount of homework could be increased.

The upside of working together and socializing work challenges is such that even free lancers have discovered the upside of working in the same space, while keeping their independency.

In short I do think that this topic should be managed with the company's strategic direction in mind. As an old African saying goes: If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

That so many got all excited about the ban shows how socially important this topic is. As I said it should be applied with moderation and this decision should be owned by the CEO. For the rest I think all the excitement is somewhat pointless.

Marrissa Mayer has achieved at least one thing: a lot of exposure for Yahoo! in general and for her as an executive in particular. I can only say: bravo!

Thanks for reading my blog.

Matt

Or if you want a totally different opinion on this topic read the Oatmeal on Working from Home.

Why DriveNow is steering in the wrong direction

2013-03-01T10:09:00.003+01:00

DriveNow is, at least from a customer feedback point of view, a highly successful car-sharing program in Germany, initiated by BMW. In Berlin, where I live, its incredible how often you come across the DriveNow branded Mini's in traffic. I'm a big fan of the program even though I use it only 3 to 4 times a months. But those times I'm totally satisfied with the user-experience, the state of the cars available, the close availability of the cars in general and the fact that these Mini's and the occasional BMW 1 Series and X1's are just great fun to drive. They also tick all the boxes when it comes to the combined use of Mobile Apps to find and book the cars and the website to inform (and also find and book the cars). All was fine at 29 ct/s min. to drive these cars until the moment an email dropped in my private mailbox...

First things first; what is DriveNow?
Not all my readers live in Germany so here is what DriveNow is about. DriveNow is a car-sharing program introduced by BMW and rolled out in Germany and in San Francisco. In Germany it competes with offerings owned by Mercedes (Car2Go), Volkswagen (Quicar, only in Hannover) and Deutsche Bahn (Flinkster). What's great about these Programs is - apart from Flinkster - that you can find and park the car anywhere in e.g. Berlin in the streets. You're not bound to pick-up and return at fixed stations in the city. Parking is for free, even in zones where parking is normally charged. Astonishing enough the cars are invariably in a clean and scratch-free state. You find and book cars using a mobile app or a website. You open and close the cars with a NFR chip that's attached onto your driver's license.
The business model is very easy. You pay 29 Euro cts. / minute once you've started a booking and are driving the car. If you want to keep it for further use you pay 10 cts. / Minute parking fee.
For a one-off fee of 29 EUR you join the program and the rest of your costs are variable.
So far so good.

I want to pay for how often I HAVE used the service, not on how many times I PLAN to use it!

K.I.S.S. Convenience Goodbye
Then I got an email announcing a new tariffs. When I read it at first I thought it was all ok. They just announced the availability of pre-paid minute bundles. Buying more minutes gets you a lower charge / minute. Then I saw that they increased the tariff per minute from 29 to 34 cts/minute. And then it dawned on my. This pre-paid payment model is totally wrong.

Dear DriveNow, your program is all about utter convenience. The fact that I can pick up and leave a car anywhere I want within the dedicated zone, without being bothered about parking fees or fuel is fantastic. Now don't ask me to plan the usage of your program ahead. I know I will be on the loosing streak when I don't consume the minutes in one month that I thought I'd need.

In fact its no longer in line with how the internet works. I expect to use you're offering on a very simple basis. I want to pay for how often I HAVE used the service, not on how many times I PLAN to use it! For god's sake in today's world I wouldn't know how to plan that and actually I don't want to. Discount based on Use-Frequency is so easy to achieve and above all so fair!

So my suggestion is that DriveNow respects the Keep It Super Simple or K.I.S.S. approach which they applied at the start.

Pay-per-use
So DriveNow should really offer me an automatically increasing discount when I use the program more frequently. I should feel rewarded for using the program. That is e.g. also the case through the "fill up the tank and earn 20 free minutes" deal. That is how I want to use DriveNow. I provide a value by filling up the tank and get a more than generous 20 minutes in return. "I Like"!

This new pre-paid package feels all wrong and reminds me too much of the old subscription economy, so much loved by the telecom operators. They spend tons of money on explaining packages with all sorts of limits and benefits which in the end still come across as a swindle.

Selling services in today's internet economy should not be about selling 'old-school subscriptions but a "pay-per-use frequency" model. DriveNow has the opportunity to apply this in the real world. I would even go as far as accepting an increase of the fee for infrequent use to 50cts/minute. As long as it rapidly declines when I use it more often.

Anyway, thanks for reading my blog. Feel free to share, comment and discuss!

Matthieu

For further reading:
DriveNow website

Why Nokia should enter the 3D Printer Business

2013-02-21T10:37:00.000+01:00

I never worked at Nokia but I did work for them on a number of Consumer Data and Consumer Experience projects as Client Partner for a Berlin based mobile agency. That's the time where I saw first hand, back in 2009, how stubbornly blind they were to what was coming their way. I was one of their first clients back in the 90's when I got my first Nokia 1011 and always loved their phones. I had one till 2010 or so, the last one being the E71. Then came the iPhone, also for me, followed by the Android Tsunami and the rest is history. The latest Lumia models are nice, very nice indeed but I find it hard to believe that they can survive on a "Me has smart phones too". Although nice and refreshing Windows Phone is simply not the disruptive change and jump forward we'd all love to see and have as consumers.

So where should they go from here? My suggestion: they should enter the 3D Printer Business. Here's why.

From past to present

Look up Nokia and on Wikipedia you learn that this company started out in the wood pulp business and then went into the electricity generation business near Tampere in Finland. It added Rubber to its portfolio and started marketing rubber boots under the Nokia Brand Name. It then evolved into a conglomerate of businesses that included over a period of decades, telegraph and telephone cables, bicycles, robots, television, military communication equipment, gas masks and chemicals. The first step towards telecommunications was made in the 70's when they produced a digital switch for telephone exchanges which became the workhorse of the telco industry.

Through its military engineering experience Nokia started experimenting with wireless telephony in the 70's as well and they were directly involved in creating the first communication standards for wireless telephony. Its first GSM phone came out in 1989 and was delivered to Finish telco operator Radiolinja. From there, in less than a decade Nokia quickly dominated the mobile phones business with Motorola and Ericsson in its slipstream.

What does the history of Nokia teach us? Well, they have a lot of experience in engineering, designing and building electronic hardware and they have two decades of programming software for this hardware under their belt. But all of this experience is now at a critical cross road where they risk loosing lots of this heritage if their smartphone business strategy doesn't deliver.

What about 3D printers?

If you believe the hype, 3D printers are going to change the way we live and do business in under two decades from now.
For those who don't know here's why 3D printers are so important:

They will change the way we produce an increasing number of products dramatically. From prosthetics, via glasses, household items and jewels all the way to the scandal inducing possibility of guns and rifles.
This new way of producing one off and personalized goods can potentially make a chunk of what's mass produced today redundant. It will open the door to a new type of retail commerce, i.e. specialized 3D printer stores, that are simply there to turn digital ideas into tangible objects. I'm sure you will see specialized stores springing up because not all printers can deliver all objects. You could metaphorically consider 3D printers as the last missing output module of the internet.
Although the technology is still in a very early stage and end-results are not always satisfactory, its just a matter of time till we will buy a 3D printer for at home or in the garage and start using it to enhance our daily lives.

3D printing today is in its infancy. You can buy a 3D printer today for a price that would buy you a sophisticated fridge or washing machine but defining 3D objects, using graphical software, is not an easy task. Of course one can find 3D printer forums and blogs by the dozen and they most will offer some form of file sharing. Experimentation is still part of the process though but as said before, the promise of being able to print personal objects for a wide variety of applications is getting the attention of an increasing number of consumers, start-ups and businesses.

So why should Nokia go into the 3D printer business?

Its my strong believe that if any company in the world is capable of entering this space and turning it into a strong new business its Nokia. As I pointed out before they have long standing history in hardware AND software manufacturing. My guess is also that they have access to a well trained workforce and an extensive line up of production partners around the globe. All that's needed is a nod from Stephen Elop and the creation of a 3D printer task force with a R&D budget attached. My guess is that they'll be able to churn out a 3D printer with an easy to use interface and software within a year. They should not forget to leverage their experience in creating eco-systems. Anyone remembers Ovi or MyNokia? If they create an eco-system around these 3D printers using the same principles as Apple once did with Music and Movies via iTunes, they're in for a healthy future.

So, who introduces me to Mr. Elop so I can pitch the idea? :-)

Thanks for reading my Blog.

Matt

For further reading:
http://3dprintingindustry.com

If you want one yourself check Cubify

Branded in China - The Long Term View

2012-12-11T15:24:00.000+01:00

Is Brand Management in China a waste of time? Recent research is starting to show that this is no longer the case. Brands have always been important for the Chinese but in the past this had more to do with status which in turn is more connected to price and exclusiveness. The Chinese have begun to discover that good Brands come with attributes such as authenticity, quality and distinction. This change opens a road to building Brand Equity for Chinese and non-Chinese Brands alike. A recent visit to Beijing made it clear that there is a change from "Made in China" to "Branded in China".

In a market fraud with counterfeits anyone can have a Louis Vuitton bag. So the next thing is to have something genuine from a Brand or to adopt a lifestyle that gives the items an new dimension. But as one can read in the excellent study: The Rise of Chinese Brand Equity by Swiss Brand Valuation Experts BV4, there are a number of reasons behing the rising importance of Brands in China. Some of them are quite obvious and come with economical and social changes. The Chinese middle class is growing and is more and affluent. Contrary to the more collective behavior most Chinese grew up with there is a new tendency towards individualism. Partially this has to do with the one-child policy but being part of a growing middle class there is an increased desire to develop and position oneself as an individual.

The view from within China
On a recent visit to China I spoke about these changes with a good MBA friend, Alex Lin, CEO of Chinavalue.net, China's most influential Business Blog. He confirmed that a growing part of the Chinese are Brand Sensitive and Brand Aware. The German car brands come to mind but also the French luxury Brands are of growing importance. At the same time he acknowledged that local Chinese Brands are beginning to see that national but also internationally there is value in developing a clear Brand Strategy.
Brand significance is not only important in Consumer Products. The Chinese travel easier not only because they are more affluent but also because travel regulations have been simplified over the past two decades. This means that the Chinese are also looking at education elsewhere in the world, specifically in the US and Europe. Also here they search for the better Brands, using the familiar rankings such as the one from the FT.

A European Brand coming to China
My brother Alain Vermeulen is CMO of Vitaminstore.nl. He decided two years ago to move closer to his IT-supplier who happens to be based in Xiamen, a city of 3 Million inhabitants close to Taiwan.
In the mean time he has opened a webshop for his Vitamins and Food Supplement products and a first retail store in Xiamen. His experience is that the Chinese are sensitive to security that Brands could offer. This is specifically true for e.g. Baby Nutrition where a couple of major scandals have tainted the national food brands in China for years to come. The obvious step has been to start selling foreign Baby Nutrition, e.g. Milk Powder from New Zealand.
Yet there is still a lot of exploring to do according to Alain. The Chinese try things out but are less loyal which leads to fluctuations in demand. The optimal mix of Branded products under the Vitaminstore China Brand is still under close scrutiny but the first results are promising.

From China into the rest of the world
There are a great many Chinese Brands that we hardly know or see outside China. Yet Brands like Midea, Haier and Geely are well established in China. They now start to eye the rest of the world. A Brand like Geely 'bought' itself a ticket into the foreign car industry through the acquisition of Volvo. Volvo in return got itself a platform into China. On both sides this partnership still has to grow but one thing is sure. Once the Chinese have mastered safety and reliability issues a bit better they will become an important global player and with that a global brand. For both the Vitaminstore Brand on a small scale and Geely as a corporate giant one thing is true though; only trial and error will show these businesses how to build their Brands for both China and the rest of the world.

Social Media
In the end it is amazing how important Social Media is in China. Although almost none of the Western channels (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter) are officially accessible from within China, the local platforms such as Sina Weibo, are immensely important for the Chinese. They research Brands and Products, look at recommendations but also share experiences and if necessary the occasional warning for dangerous or counterfeited products and services.
The fact that in a society with so many cultural and historical differences Social Media are of equal importance shows one more time how Brands should embrace this channel instead of ignoring it.

The long term view for both sides
The Chinese government has started to address the importance of IP Rights. When building Brand Equity having some form of protection through Trademark Registrations and Patents can be vital. Increased legal action and control of counterfeiting helps the Chinese market also to gain a reputation as more brand friendly environment. This does not mean that it is all of a sudden very easy to establish a brand in China. The cultural and language barriers remain important. The Chinese on the other side will find it hard getting rid of the 'cheap and low quality' image of 'Made in China'. A Brand like Lenovo has managed by simply acquiring the IBM Thinkpad Brand. But the opportunities to buy your way into a Western market are scarce and should be carefully managed.
Fact is that we will have more Chinese Brands coming over, also of good quality with probably an exceptional price/quality ratio. And as for Branding in China itself, I think we're just at the start of an enormous task with an immense upside.
Brand Managers and Agencies, stay tuned!

The concept of Brand Mass & Brand Risk and its impact on change

2012-11-20T14:41:00.000+01:00

Audi carefully honed its brand to sheer perfection over the past two decades. From an also ran with little aspiration it is has become the benchmark for top-quality interiors and modern consistent design. A few years ago however it noticed that its reputation was slipping in the polls. The Brand got more and more associated with arrogant and agressive drivers, with similar road manners, an image that belonged more to BMW and some Mercedez Benz drivers. Audi's board then issued the task to its branding and marketing people to turn this around.

The board simply issued a simple brief: Audi should delight customers as a Brand. That's a clear call for more emotion. Through a host of changes in the Corporate Image guidelines, changes in sponsoring programmes and in marketing, the brand transformed itself to the more solid, cool and somewhat understated brand it is today. The excitement was clearly achieved via the R8 and the victories at the 24 Hours of LeMans. In the product marketing, even the faster and more agressive models, such as the RS series, come with descriptions that are not referring to its extreme speed and acceleration capabilities. Instead the focus its on the design details that set the RS5 apart from the standard A5 model.

The interesting aspect of the branding repositioning exercise is not that the fact that every now and then a Brand has to go through such an exercise. These days, a shit-storm in the internet can create more damage in a few days than a branding department can handle and correct in a few months.

"Vorsprung durch Identity"
What makes Audi an interesting case is the fact that their branding is fairly monolithic. The often called 'Marushka' dolls design principle leads to cars that look alike between series. You need a trained eye to spot the difference between an A4 and an A6, specifically from the back. Audi only does one type of design for a series of cars that sell extremely well, specifically in Asia. The brand has become extremely recognizable but also more one-dimensional and it has also gained substantial global presence.

The associated brand identity works well because with brand promise, 'Vorsprung durch Technik'. The advantage is reflected in the design and in the specifications of the actual cars.

Audi has what I would call substantial Brand Mass. Whether you like it or not, as soon as you get in touch with any Audi product or touchpoint you will meet the same 'Audiness' everywhere. Its comparable to an oil tanker. Once pointed in a certain direction it is hard to change its course and even harder to reverse.

Brand Mass in itself is not bad. Its come with efficiencies that consumer product giants like Nestlé and P&G can only dream of. Yet it also comes with a certain risk. If consumers keep seeing Audi as an arrogant brand for drivers of the single-male-macho kind it could loose its appeal as a whole to a group of consumers that suddenly associate the monolithic brand experience as one big affront.

In other words, increased Brand Mass means increased Brand Risk, specifically in the reputational area.

Is there a way to mitigate this risk? The obvious answer would be, yes through diversification, i.e. the creation of Sub Brands. Toyota and Nissan have done this through the creation of the Infinity and Lexus luxury brands. Although it requires the creation of new Brands it does help spreading reputational risk, specifically if the sub-brand are still subtly but firmly attached to the 'Master' Brand. The Best in Class example here is BMW with their superbly integrated MINI and Rolls Royce Brands.

Audi seems to have taken one step in that direction by acquiring Lamborghini and recently Ducati. But for now this connection is hardly ever highlighted. Its mostly the Automotive Media that refer to this connection.

Audi remains though a class-act when it comes to the total integration of Corporate, Brand and Product Strategy with a superbly consistent Design and Experience based on the Brand's values.

For further reading:
Audi's Corporate Strategy
A very good Audi SWOT by marketingteacher.com

Why Red Bull Sponsoring Felix Baumgartner's Space Jump is a Branding Master Piece

2012-10-31T16:20:00.005+01:00

Red Bull's rise as a global brand is phenomenal. It created singlehandedly the energy drink category and rules it in over 160 countries around the world. A great case of Blue Ocean strategy in a business that many thought would be the playground of Coca-Cola and Pepsi for years to come. Red Bull seems to be able to apply their own slogan 'Red Bull gives you wings' perfectly to their own business. In an almost perfect orchestration of sponsoring extreme sports that are adventurous, fast paced or downright dangerous, Felix Baumgartner's jump from the edge of space fits completely.

Or does it? Interestingly enough Felix was taken into near orbit by a helium balloon slowly rising for nearly two hours. Getting out of the cabin came across as a needlessly long and tedious process. When he finally made through the hatch, having no wings he plunged back to earth, exceeding the sound barrier in the process and landed after only 4 minutes. Where were the Red Bull wings in this process? Felix speeding down made me think about the story of a certain Icarus and has hand-made wings.

From a Brand perspective this whole thing should have been the other way around. Felix should have been catapulted to 39 kilometers altitude in some crazy plane, preferably of some obscure Russian brand. Then we would have seen him whizzing down in a space suit with wings that would unfold once reaching the earth's atmosphere allowing him to slowly glide back to earth while being followed by a helicopter or flying camera.

But so much for the Wings in Red Bull's Brand slogan.

Of course the whole Jump from the Edge of Space is a great fit with the Red Bull brand, I would even say a Branding Masterpiece. The world records that were set or broken will stay for a while to come and will be associated with the brand's extreme-sports image. Red Bull's wings do apply to dare-devil character of this event and today you wouldn't be able of another sponsor that would remotely have the means and the Brand story that Red Bull has.

The big surprise to me though was that only 7 Million people followed the jump live on the web on YouTube. I have not seen any other 'eyeball' statistic so I am really wondering, did only 7 Million people watch this fantastic project? I hope not.

For the other Millions who missed this fantastic stunt, here is the Red Bull Stratos website.

Message to Nokia: Stop Featurism - Start Experience Branding

2012-10-05T09:45:00.002+02:00

The iPhone5 vs. Lumia 920 infographs keep popping up on the web and more specifically on Facebook. Whether directly driven by Nokia or not, the comparison of the Camera quality, the touchscreen sensitivity or the wireless charge feature, show that Nokia and its community are still thinking that more features mean a better product, a better user experience and ultimately Brand loyalty. But to beat the iPhone at its game there's more at stake than a choice of device colors.

Its no news to most of my blog readers that the iPhone5 beats the Lumia on all accounts is its eco-system. If you set-up your iTunes account properly in combination with Apple's cloud service, migrating from any iPhone to the iPhone5 is fairly painless, although some major 'fxxx-ups' have been reported.

Yes, we know by now that the new Apple Maps is not what it should be, not by far. With Apple openly apologizing and suggesting the use of other Map apps I'm not sure whether this is the first of more blunders to come in the absence of Steve Jobs or just a temporary bump on the roadmap (pun intended). This interesting article sheds some light on Apple's changes under Tim Cook.

Whatever it is, none of these Apple problems will stop them from having the better integrated user-experience with music, apps and media available over one coherently designed platform.

Lumia in yellow anybody?

With the Lumia 920 Nokia will have a device on offer with a number of sleek features (and colors!) but there's not much of a consistent eco-system coming with it, at least not at first. So for now the Lumia 920 is a device, heavily leaning on a Windows Brand feature, its UI and less on Nokia's Brand values which is, as far as I can remember, about 'Connecting People'.

This won't change much when Windows 8 is rolled out and Microsoft, who all of sudden discovered User-Oriented Design and seems to be winning back some of its mojo, gets its eco-system act together. Because the question remains, where does it leave Nokia as a Brand in this equation? Their focus on hardware and features, instead of offering a compelling experience in line with the Brand values, is not the right way forward. When it doesn't integrate deeply in a user's life, it will not be a sustainable offering against the competition.

Microsoft forced more or less all Hotmail users to migrate to an Outlook branded interface. This is, according to some internal sources at Microsoft, one of the steps towards a thorough harmonization of its consumer brands. Only if that happens any time soon will Nokia stand a chance luring some users towards their smartphone products, specifically among those who are currently on BlackBerry for professional reasons. Why? Well because a strong and streamlined eco-system will help convincing potential users to make the switch. The question here from a Branding perspective is still how Nokia will remain visible in an otherwise Microsoft branded eco-system. But maybe it would be good if they can survive by selling more hardware in the first place.

I am currently keeping a close eye on how the IT-community is picking up Windows 8 and what the speed of migration here is. Once small, medium and large companies have adopted Windows 8, switching the workforce to Windows Phone mobile devices will make sense. With Apple remaining weak in the mail and calendar applications space, there's a real chance for the Nokia-Windows tandem to gain serious traction at the expense of BlackBerry and Android and ultimately, also at the expense of Apple if they keep committing Map likes gaffes.

Focus on smart not on phones
Strategically it is actually refreshing to see how Nokia starts playing the role of the underdog. They finally seem to understand that being small and agile has an advantage. When also having the immense pressure of potential failure in the next few years on their shoulders, smarter thinking starts popping up.

I would sincerely welcome Nokia as a player that drives Windows 8 devices forward. They have to start thinking eco-systems though and the opportunity could be in the small and medium sized business space on the one hand. On the other side I think that there's an opportunity in creating solutions that would integrate with user's daily lives. With the upcoming surge in connected household appliances Nokia could think of solutions that embed their devices through a clever eco-system, e.g. a dedicate platform, in their daily activities. When you think about their credo 'Connecting People' than this concept would make total sense.

Why don't they focus on a phone that takes their own Maps experience to the next level. Much like Apple made iTunes indispensable for iPhone, Nokia Maps could integrate so well with the Lumia devices that you want to use it since it improves your life for particular use-cases you tremendously. Out of the box thinking, or really getting rid of the whole box altogether is required here. But whether Nokia's leadership is in the right place to got there?

So far there's little sign of Nokia going in that direction. In a recent interview with cnet Stephen Elop says even 'We'll spend to break through', the question remains: spending it on what? In the interview it is clear that one more time they focus on hardware. But its like selling Ferrari's in Africa. There's no infrastructure there to enjoy such a car to its full potential.

Maybe there's a small guerrilla group somewhere in Nokia House driving this change, completely under the corporate radar. That this can result in great changes is what we've seen at Audi with the Quattro concept. If not then all the spending in the world is not going to connect Nokia to reality and it will remain the burning platform as described by Stephen Elop in his first internal memo he sent at the start of his tenure as CEO.

Nokia is on my radar-screen in any event.

MV

Social Media Monitoring @Dmexco 2012 & Generation World

2012-09-20T10:49:00.001+02:00

The Demexco Digital Marketing Exposition and Conference in Cologne is already a week behind me and I finally have the time to write a quick update. First and foremost this event is indeed about marketing and less about branding. Even though in today's business environment branding and marketing converge as a result of the growing importance of digital, the majority of the exhibitors are players in the digital marketing service area. From SEO and SMO, via 'classic' email marketing, web-analytics to online video and media placement, the most important players, start-ups and even corporates in these areas where there. Yet there are two topics which caught my eye which are relevant to Branding. Social Media Monitoring and David Sable's Keynote about 'Generation World'.

Watch your Brand

Marketing Dashboards for website statistics and analytics are common tools in marketing today. Whether developed in-house or sourced from an external supplier, they've become the digital equivalent of a plumber's pair of adjustable spanners. With the rise of Social Media a need has risen to monitor discussions, messages and tweets that concern a Brand.

Over the past two years a number of suppliers and start-ups popped up to address this need. At the Demexco I could only find three serious contenders, one of them being IBM, the other two being TalkWalker and Brandwatch.

IBM presented a Dashboard based on their Cognos software suite. In a discussion with the sales guy I quickly discovered that they are trying to sell this to the big corporates in Germany. Their challenge there is that they are perceived and probably behave, as a technology provider. Something which is confirmed by the design of their dashboard, the graphs and their selection of parameters.

Brandwatch had a very nicely looking dashboard which makes a lot of sense for Brand Managers. Their platform can crawl in a couple of European languages and comes across as a fairly mature product with a nice front-end and a website where additional information is available in the form of eBooks and "how-to's".

TalkWalker was probably the best solution for Brand Managers I've seen. Their platform has an easy to grasp interface with intuitive parameters. The nice part about their story is also that they are actually more in the data gathering business and have started to develop the analytics that transforms the data into meaningful indicators. The front-end was actually developed in-house so they can present their data and analytics services better. They claim that their data-set can even look 2 years back in time and can crawl in 50 languages in 49 countries. There platform is also targeted at agencies and research institutions. They are right now very well placed to help Corporate organisations to adopt Brand Monitoring and learn how Social Media Brand Monitoring can be used to improve Branding and how it can contribute to improving Corporate Image and Corporate Design strategy.

Learning by doing

But no matter what the technical solution offers the effectiveness of these platforms depend on how one sets up queries around themes, keywords and combinations of keywords. These then need to be transformed in Brand specific indicators which help Brand Managers to understand what's going on. How these indicators are defined is something each Brand has to learn over time. Finally a Brand needs to decide if certain indicator values require action and what these actions should be.

In any event it is clear that Social Media Brand Monitoring is here to stay and that enterprise tools are available to start this Learning by Doing process.

David Sable's Generation World

The Keynote speeches at Demexco offered a few highlights too, one of them was certainly David Sable's keynote where he explains his Generation World vision. Generation World is about how demographics are changing and globalisation is changing our relationship with brands. It explains why segmentation for marketing purposes in the classic sense is therefor less effective than ever before.

Today we see consumers of over 50 skateboarding and using iPads, something which teenagers are doing as well. Globally we see convergence of consumer behavior around globally available borderless services. In short we see that we are borderless, ageless, more connected but also more siloed.

In this landscape Brands are more and more important as anchor points. At the same time Brands need to understand that consumers are better prepared to choose and they choose based on how a Brand fits their needs. He illustrates this with Uniqlo as a Brand that has a collection that's suitable for a very broad audience of all ages and for both sexes. At the same time American Apparel has understood that their audience is aging and uses therefor senior models for their marketing and advertising.

Consequences of this Generation World are:

- We are in constant Beta, specifically when it comes to digital services.

- Access is the new ownership. In other words I want access to music or books, I don't necessarily need to own them.

- We are craving "Pre-Digital" experiences, like e.g. exchanging recipes and sharing experiences around food they ate.

- Global resonates locally. We see that global products and services are localized an example that he illustrates using McDonalds and their localized products such as the McVeggie and McFallafel burgers.

He ends with the recommandation to rethink the boundaries of a Brand's audience.

Generation World is an inspiring vision although I would say that certain assumptions are changing already for the digital native generation. Craving Pre-Digital experiences e.g. is something that digital natives probably see different. For this generation the boundary between digital and real-life is no longer there. Digital experiences are as real as real-life experiences, which means that Brands should be very careful in distinguishing between these two when targeting today's teenagers. Or actually they can use this to their advantage. More specifically this means that conversations on Facebook are as important as a face-to-face meetins if not more important.

This then finally connects the first topic, Social Media Brand Monitoring, with David's speech. Brands should be part of the digital natives generation while being aware of the impact that the Generation World concept has on their Branding and Marketing efforts, knowing that digital conversation are of growing importance.

IFA 2012 - Everything will be connected to everything

2012-09-10T14:45:00.004+02:00

My love-hate relationships with trade fairs continues after my visit to the IFA. Why is it that at these fairs products like the 84 inch 4k Bravia televisions from Sony are so bloody impressive? Why is it that Samsung can proudly present their home connection framework, even though it is not sure when exactly this will become available in Europe and actually make you feel good about it? The design of the trade fair booths sure help convincing you here. But the overwhelming amount of visitors plus the long stretches you have to walk, get on my nerves quickly.

Anyway, a stroll for a few hours on the first day revealed a lot about the current state of innovation in the world of multi-media and consumer white goods. How does this affect branding and the way brands interact with their clients and with other brands to create meaningful branded interactions and eco-systems. Here are my 7 Branding Strategy thoughts.

  1. Brands can't do it alone but some keep trying

There was something not right with the Sony stand. Their 84 inch 4k screen technology is mighty impressive, no doubt about that. But in the main area on their booth they focused primarily on their media own devices and eco-system. The presentation felt like an Apple system. Closed and totally focused around their own products, even though their tablets are based on Android, i.e. on Open Source software. But they kept going on about how Sony would enhance your music experience because al your music would be available on all your (Sony) devices instantly and how you can share photo's with friends. Yes, it will sure enhance our lives but so do the products and services of a gazillion other Brands. What is your real USP here then?

So somehow it feels wrong that you don't see a single other smartphone or tablet on their stand. It was as if entering a different political system when walking into the hall Sony that had completely occupied. The security guards at the entrance all of a sudden get a different symbolic meaning...

 My recommendation for Brands in any field would be to forget about the 'I am all the Brand you ever need' attitude and accept that you can achieve much more if you connect in certain areas with niche players.

  2. Washing machine marketing is a lot of fun

When you get to explain stuff like PowerFoam technology, VarioPerfect, PureCycle, LogiControl, SoftSurge, Vibration Reduction Technology, Direct Drive Motor, Ceramic Drum, ProTex Plus, having a job as a washing machine salesman must be a lot of fun.

I talked to a guy on the Samsung stand who told me how PowerFoam technology would reduce detergent use by 70% and provide me with 'dry-cleaner' like results. How does he know that I am actually satisfied with my dry-cleaner?

In addition I will be able to connect my washing machine in the future to a household communication network that allows me to start and stop the machine from anywhere in the world. As said, not available in Europe yet but soon to come. Apart from practical issues, such as: who will actually load the machine so that it makes sense to start it at a distance, I am yet to be convinced that this life enhancing technology is what I need to be happy. Nevertheless I am sure that the value of this use-case and the value of having connected appliances will become clearer soon.

Samsung Smart Experience, connecting all household appliances.

  Back to what this means for Branding. When you look at all the proposed home-networking systems it is clear that again we will see a mash-up of services and products, which means a similar mash-up of Brands, Brand Strategies and Brand Values. Although Samsung wants you to believe that you can do everything and more with their system only, I am expecting the consumer to choose systems and solutions that they can mix and mash-up themselves, unless the User Experience and Value Proposition is so spot on and seamless as the one offered by Apple. But it is hard to see which Brand has the visionary leadership to take Apple's crown.

 Brand Strategy will require thinking as to how screen real estate is shared when the screen sits in a car from Brand A, the information comes from a Brand B device and the connecting network is managed by Brand C.

 Relevant links

Samsung Connected Devices

Telekom Connected Consumer Products

  3. Telekom 'Joyns' the home dots

Of course you couldn't mistake the Telekom booth for any other brand thanks to the magenta carpet stretching across the complete thing; über-branding as usual, not to be missed.

Telekom is seriously trying to revolutionize the Telco industry e.g. with Joyn, the new Message standard. Although that is interesting, even better is their Home Network standard, called 'Smart Connect'.

Where Telekom really tries new concepts is with their Qivicon Start-up. This partner based business model that is actually more in line with the future if networked businesses as other providers offer. Telekom's model is based around connecting interfaces that partnering companies, among which we encounter Miele and Samsung, can use to allow their products, e.g. washing machines, to be operated by and share information with apps.

This network has its own Branding, i.e. Qivicon, so interesting enough Telekom moves to the background as Brand. Ultimately Qivicon should generate its own revenue through the interface licensing, according to the sales person on the booth.

Interesting question in this case is of course if building start-up Brands is part of the future Strategy for Telekom and to what extent this will be part of their overall Brand Strategy, including the B2C part. A case to be closely watched from a branding perspective.

 To the Qivicon website

4. Screens, screens & more screens, how to stand out

 

The television screens and touch screen monitors are overwhelmingly impressive. It is interesting to see how visually how underwhelming in comparison the audio brands look.

 Globally leading brands such as Yamaha and Teac were present but they have somehow difficulty impressing you in the same direct fashion as the television giants do. Sure, everyone doing something with audio is now offering some form of media and audio streaming for at home.

 But pure sound players occupy relatively little floor space at the IFA. This is probably also the reason why Branding is so much a visual exercise and much less a sound thing. Only the largest brands have sound logo's and even their these evolve very slow.

 Will this ever change? I don't have the stats here available but it seems in this world that human beings are more visually oriented and less guided by sound so it is probably the correct reflection of how consumers tick.

 So back to screens. I think I've never seen so many screens being used on a consumer electronics trade fair, apart from the gaming and computer fairs maybe. If you take the countless screens on smart phones, refrigerators, remote controls, climate systems and even garden appliances into account, it becomes clear that we're living in an increasingly 'screened' environment. With recent trends as mega-super-sized television, 4k+ pixel resolution and 3D (even without glasses) it is clear that in the visual space brands still have a lot to explore.

 Big question is how Brands can make best use of these new technologies and if there are ways of enhancing the visual 'on-screen' brand look and feel through sound, haptics and scents.

See the Sony Bravia 84 inch screen

(oh and btw, since when has Sony's website turned into a e-commerce shop? Looks & feels like what Nokia did about a year ago in Europe and it felt totally off...

5. Where were Google, Microsoft & Nokia?

 Another observation or actually more a question is: where were Google, Microsoft and Nokia. The first is one of the major players in a networked world and has some reputation damage to repair, specifically in Germany. They were there in 2010 with a Keynote speech but as far as I could see they were absent this year.

The other two were absent too, even though you'd tend to think that the IFA would be the perfect opportunity to show off the results of their now two year partnership in the Windows Smart Phone area. Saving costs or incurring opportunity costs. Sure is, less eyeballs on your Brands at least at the IFA.

  6. The best innovation are invisible

 It is often said that great design should be experienced and is therefor ideally invisible or unnoticeable. It is so good that you accept it and use it right away.

 I would say that the best innovations are those you also hardly notice. The best example is I think Panasonic's induction based wireless charger for electrical cars. It was on display in what looked like a go-kart after a major playground crash and you could easily miss it. But as published in a long-term test article with the Nissan Leaf in Car Magazine, one of the biggest user problems currently is dealing with the dirty electrical cable after a charge.

 Panasonic's system proposes a wireless system consisting of two blocks, one mounted underneath a car and another surface-mounted at a charging station. When the car moves over the surface-mounted charger and stops right above it, the 2 blocks are pressed together so that the car batteries are charged using wireless induction based technology. Gone are the dirty hands and the always entangled wire.

 Again the relevance for branding is also here that Panasonic proposes a solution to the car-industry and that this in turn means that car and supplier brand will have to find a way to co-exist, something that Bosch has done for years already in the automotive sector.

7. An Apple a Day

 When you are Apple your omnipresence is such that you don't even want a booth I guess. Apple products were literally everywhere: Bosch showed an interactive manual on an oversized Apple iPad screen. Every manufacturer of audio and hifi equipment has an iPad docking something-system on offer. Most of not all smartphone apps are of course available for iOS. You so much expect to see the iPhone/iPad user interface on every booth that you tend to overlook it.

Is that bad for Apple as a Brand? For now I don't know. It is true that the new iPhone5 rumored to have a different connector. That means that all you're old docking station needs a replacement or (if at all possible) an adapter... A tiny but substantial Brand initiated annoyance. This will certainly raise a few eyebrows but will this be detrimental to Apple's Brand Equity? That remains to be seen.

 So...

My visit to the IFA was inspiring in the end and it is reassuring to see that Digital still moves as fast. Brands can only ignore the side-effects of digital interaction and interconnectivity at their own peril. Consumer touchpoints based on touchscreen experiences are the new reality. The new motion sensors and face recognition technology will take this to the next level. The IFA only confirms that Brands have to stay digitally tuned and networked.

Why Sony should have invented the iWatch

2012-05-16T19:31:00.001+02:00

It is easy to criticize companies in trouble. My gripe with Sony as much as with Nokia is that they should have seen the changes in their markets coming 5 years ago. They should have launched new products, services or even businesses by today or should have acquired promising start-ups by now.
None of that happened and we could contemplate forever about why not. So while it is easy to see this in hindsight, the question remains of course; what should they have done different? Upon seeing yet another I'm Watch ad or an E-Paper Watch ad, the latest über-succes story at Kickstarter, I realized THIS is what Sony could or should have done. And in fact [update!] they just did announce one.

Sony Smartwatch - the one to watch?

Most consumers age 30 and over will remember Sony for their Walkman. I also remember them from back in the days as makers of super cool video and recording studio hardware. But some time after 2000 Sony started to loose its cool. And recently it all went from bad to worse.

For too long Sony went on producing hardware but they forgot to develop a meaningful ecosystem. It also forgot to develop products that are cool. Where before Sony sold ultra-expensive halo hardware, much like Audi has the A8 or R8, today they have little to brag about.

When they did start to develop content for their hardware, like the Sony Entertainment Network, the rest of the market was already a step ahead. Its fine to build television or to sell hifi equipment but what if the content is not more and more integrated with a larger digital infrastructure? Where is the Bluetooth connection on a Sony TV e.g. How can I easily integrate that huge screen into my owned & acquired content collection? How can I get access to searchable content on the web. Where can I access my content in the cloud? Can I stream my music over Wifi or Bluetooth using other equipment, preferably from Sony if that is my preferred supplier?

Today it is absolutely important to not only sell hardware but to sell an infrastructure where the hardware is first and foremost the start of a customer relationship. But the hardware should also be a tool that derives its relevance from what it does NOT do, i.e. it is not a collection of features but a logical unit that gains its meaning in my life through integration. It should have a clearly reduced but relevant set of features that enable this integration, nothing more and nothing less.

And then there is I'm Watch. In fact in itself I'm Watch is nothing more than a different way of using existing content, transmitted over Bluetooth. Apart from a clock it can't do much, yet it comes alive as soon as its hooked up to a smartphone or computer. Now imagine I'm Watch with a Sony logo on it. Imagine what they can develop to bring that watch to live, using their own available content.

So there it is Sony; I'm Watch could have been your next Walkman. This is what consumer ask from electronics today. Cross device content streams, cloud based content solutions. It is actually not so important whether it is the cloud, a smartphone, or computer based, it doesn't really matter. It is again more about how the end-user has seamless access to owned, acquired or searchable content at any given time. For Sony this should go from integration of television use with home computers and tablets, with the home based printer, with a cloud based storage.

UPDATE

Just days after this article was published here first Sony did release a Bluetooth watch under the completely un-inspiring and 'missed a major opportunity to define a category' name Sony Smartwatch. According to the reviews there is not so much that is very Smart about it. In fact from the reviews you get the feeling that some haphazardly put together team rushed the thing to market, forgetting in the process what it takes to build a great experience.

The I'm Watch offers, at least on ehrm 'paper' the right kind of integration and serves as an agile extension of your smartphone or computer. I just hope it will serve as a wake-up call for big corporates and their workforce. We'll wait and see but if the Smartwatch is Sony's future then it I'd challenge them to get smarter still.

Sony Smartwatch review @pocket-lint

i’m Watch, the first real smartwatch in the world

I'm watch home page

Update:

Sony filing a Patent for wireless charging. Curious to see what they will do with it in a few months from now.

Why Brand Strategy should be leading and how to get there

2012-05-08T22:34:00.001+02:00

Prof. Uli Mayer-Johanssen, founder and Chairwoman of the Executive Board at MetaDesign, said it loud and clear again during an internal presentation; a lot of businesses today are not organized to deliver their own Brand Strategy, leave alone their own Brand Promise. This is specifically true for large Corporate Structures where the boundaries between departments do not contribute to a thoroughly Brand Focused Organization.

We've stopped counting the number of times we've been trough the following scenario. A client asks us to redefine their Corporate Identity and shape up their Corporate Design. We invite them for a workshop and from the client side a lot of stakeholders turn up. Marketing, Communication, IT and General Management are often among them. Within 30 minutes after the kick-off we discover that these people do not talk to each other although they are very often placed in the same building.

They don't speak the same language and when asked to describe what their own company's Brand Promise is, you get as many different answers as there are people in the room.

As a Branding Agency our role turns in that case into a moderator and integrator. To address the issue of non-communication between departments and to overcome different views on the companies' Corporate Identity we developed the Meta Platform. It provides the framework for a methodology addressing the communication challenge upfront. The methodology relies primarily on workshops, aimed at getting the various viewpoints on the table and deriving a shared View on Brand Strategy as a basis for Corporate Branding and Corporate Identity. I would even drive this one step further, Brand Strategy, not Corporate Strategy, should be the driving force.

Corporate Strategy ≠ Brand Strategy

In the classic MBA Programs most of us learn how Corporate Strategy should be exercised. We learn how to position a company as a leader in innovation or as a price-beater or as an exclusive luxury product. That's all fine but very often the strategy remains where it is developed; in the strategy department.

So let's first define the difference between Corporate and Brand Strategy.

Corporate Strategy is defined by analyzing the current and future market situation of a company. Through comparison of market data and through building an understanding of market trends a company defines what its future objectives and targets are and how it could get there. The primary question is basically: where do we go and how do we get there.

Brand Strategy is very much an inward looking exercise where the company imagines what it wants to be to its customers, how it wants to interact and which values its products and services are based on. The primary question is: who are we as a Brand and what kind of relationship do we prefer having with our customers.

But the inward look is important since it will contribute to the potential success of the Corporate Strategy.

Brand and Corporate Strategy should go hand-in-hand where success is closely related to having a Brand Strategy that is known, shared and lived by all employers.

Why share?

One could say that it is important that the outside world understands a Brand, likes it and incorporates it. As this is the task of the Branding, Marketing & Communication Departments, some companies are satisfied when external surveys show that the Brand is understood and the Brand Message is consistent.

Internally it is however as important, if not more important, that employees have a common and consistent understanding of their own Brand and Brand Strategy and act accordingly.

Only with a shared and consistent Brand Strategy can a company achieve e.g. focused risk taking and consistent Brand Enhancing decision making.

Without consistent Brand Strategy insight there is a real risk that the HR department hires the wrong people. Or the finance department will fight against a far reaching investment decision that is in fact perfectly in line with the Brand Strategy and would contribute immensely to its sustainability. It does even occur that the Communication Department focuses on different aspects of the Brand as the Marketing Department.

Aligning on Brand Strategy is the basic condition for e.g.: employer Branding and Corporate Brand Language.

How to

Aligning the various departments throughout a corporate organization, in fact any organization, starts with identifying the gaps. At MetaDesign we use the methodology developed under the MetaPlatform nomer. The primary tool is conducting a number of workshops where the Brand Strategy knowledge is tested against a known or agreed Brand Strategy Framework that is e.g. signed off by the Board.

Once it is clear where the differences occur we can start addressing them first with the departments separately. During the process we bring the departments together and let them work on different cases where we review how well they align in their decision making, using Brand Strategy as a guide.

Why this is important

One more time, the alignment of departments around the Brand Strategy will make a Corporate Organization more efficient and more intelligent when it comes to:

Design
Interactions
Decision making

Think e.g. about Audi incorporating the Ducati Brand. Audi stands for Premium cars that are recognizable through a consistent design and that transmit the premium feel primarily through the look and feel of the interior design and construction.

I can only imagine that the board found little resistance when announcing that they wished to acquire the Ducati Brand. The Finance Department must have thought that this is at first a remarkable decision but that ultimately Ducati is a Brand that is recognizable and could be integrated under the Audi Brand. In fact Audi is already owner of the Lamborghini Brand, which wasn't exactly known for its high quality finish.

For further reading:

Audi buys Ducati

About MetaDesign

The ART of Digital Branding

2012-02-28T15:57:00.000+01:00

That Digital has changed Branding forever is by now common knowledge. So what's new now that anyone can talk, blog or tweet about your Brand with sometimes unbelievable power. What is essential to ensure that conversations about your Brand are constructive and positive? Here is a suggestion: learn about the ART in Digital Branding.

In the Brand Governance piece on this blog I highlighted the importance of Digital Brand Governance already. Digital Brand Governance should help Brand Managers to deal with discussions that include your Brand in Social Media by providing a framework. IBM has a great example of how this can be formalized, without turning it into a Rulebook. Their IBM Virtual World Guidelines provide employees with the general code of conduct for all actions and communications in Virtual Worlds such as Second Life. Although targeted at these Virtual Worlds these Guidelines could also be used to guide employees for Social Media. Completely in line with common practice in Social Media, this Framework is publicly accessible.

The IBM guidelines refer mostly to common sense and honesty. In fact by stating it the way they do IBM empowers its employees to act as they see fit and take responsibility for their actions.

So now one step forward to Social Media itself. Brand Governance or Employee Guidelines are only one part of the Digital Brand reality. In Social Media it is not only your employees or biggest fans that talk about you. Anyone can talk about your brand, the quality of your services, the individual responses of employees to Twitter communications and Facebook posting and so on. These conversations cannot be controlled or switched off. You can only influence them with Guidelines such as those proposed by IBM.

You could consider the ongoing conversations and discussions about your Brand as a test for your own Brand Values. In fact every day your Brand is tested regarding 3 value dimensions:

Authenticity
Relevance
Transparency

If all 3 are considered to be a positive part of the Brand's perceived image, the conversations originating about this Brand in Social Media will be more meaningful and positive. If a Brand is authentic, relevant and transparent it will also be easier for employees to participate in the dialogue in which case the aforementioned Branding Governance Framework is of great value.

Authenticity

On Wikipedia Authenticity is defined as follows:

In philosophy, the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite these pressures.

Interesting is the aspect of pressure and influences. This Brand Pressure is e.g. clearly a topic when it comes to making a profit in comparison to sustainability and social responsibility. The Pressure on Brands has clearly increased with the arrival of Social Media. It is e.g. there where MacDonald's recent Twitter campaign around the use of Biological Products went horribly wrong. A group of Twitter users considered MacDonald's claim as non-authentic and used the hashtags to Tweet about there own issues with the Brand.

Relevance

Referring to Wikipedia again, Relevance could be defined as follows:

"Something (A) is relevant to a task (T) if it increases the likelihood of accomplishing the goal (G), which is implied by T." (Hjørland & Sejer Christensen,2002).

Interesting here is accomplishing goals. Many Brands suggest that using their products or services has a benefit. These benefits are almost invariably related to improving one's life or to achieving goals.

When a Brand uses its relevance, e.g. like Kodak did in photography, it will attract less or ignite negative conversations. Brand Relevance is closely related to Marketing and Product/Service Design with a defining influence in the Digital space.

Transparency

When a Brand is clear about how it behaves, reacts and functions to the outside world, it gains in Transparency. Transparent Brands explain how they behave and stick to the rules and regulations they've communicated. Some of these rules can also be implicit and are learned when someone interacts with the Brand. A simple example is e.g. the time it takes to respond to a comment or answer a question. A quick response time will contribute to a feeling of Transparency.

Applying ART

So Authenticity, Relevance and Transparency are important Brand Dimensions. In Social Media these three are consistently tested. The question is of course how a Brand can Monitor and Measure this.

Measuring ART for a Brand is a soft non-quantifiable practice in the first place. If we look once more to the IBM guidelines there's nothing which quantitatively defines correct behavior. By referring to ART as a natural part of any inter human social activity one could argue that when a Brand starts to feel like it is isolated or bullied, it is also loosing on one or more of the 3 dimensions. It is always important to measure traffic and count the number of times people use your Brand name in conversations.

It is then important to have someone in your team reading and understanding posts. You should check regularly with the Social Media managers about tonality of ongoing conversations. In fact you can ask them directly: are we still seen as Authentic, Relevant and Transparent? If they have even the slightest doubt about any one of the 3, consider ringing the alarm bell. It is then probably time for a RestART.

Update: what about Apple?
A colleague asked me an interesting question after reading this article. Apple is Authentic and Relevant but not Transparent, at least not when it comes to when it comes to their Product announcements and planning. Also their decision making process in the App Store is an unpredictable Black Box. Yet as a Global Brand they are in the op 3, so how does that work against the ART principle?

The answer I guess is two-fold. On the one hand, Apple is very Transparent when it comes to existing products, the way the work and the way Apple's services works. From a usability aspect Apple is without competition. In fact the Usability is in complete harmony with Apple's great design philosophy.

That Apple is not so Transparent about their next products contributes in fact to the power of the Brand. It enhances the reputation of those sources who know and who proof to be right when they predict something about Apple's product roadmap. It is also proof of Apple's power. They can partially go against the Transparency principle because they are so strong in the Usability area which makes them extremely relevant.

That the AppStore Certification process is opaque might be inconvenient for developers and others who occasionally depend on the outcome.

The incredible Apple Usability should be an inspiration for a great many other Brands out there, specifically if they manage to match the Brand's Story and Identity with usable products.