Most of the time student ideas get lost somewhere in their portfolio. The Cannes Future Lions give them a chance to show their work to the world’s leading agencies.

The brief last year was pretty simple: “Shake-up the advertising world with an idea that would not have been possible five years ago.”

And with a great case students’ of Berghs School of Communication won. Their corporate partner has been Fortum, one of Sweden’s and Scandinavia’s largest energy companies.

“Our challenge was to make people see Fortum as not just another boring energy giant you’re reminded of only when your monthly bill arrives in the mail”, says aspiring Art Director Gustav Johansson.
“Our aim is to involve the customer in their own energy consumption in a creative manner.”

Gustav Johansson, Erik Högfeldt and Rasmus Keger created an amazing campaign around the basic idea to involve people into their energy consumption. You have to watch the case movie…

Congratulation guys and I hope more students will start to shake-up the advertising world! We desperately need it.

“Major sporting events don’t need beer sponsorship. You do!”

This was the starting point for TBWA Vancouver to create an integrated campaign for promoting their clients craft beer. Instead of sponsoring big public events the Okanagan Spring invested his ad dollars directly to its drinkers.

Party hosts could submit their ideas on sponsormespring.ca from their small-scale, backyard or basement social gatherings to party’s like “Hanging Around After Ed’s Soccer Game”. People could vote on who should get supported and by the end of every month sponsorships where given out to the submissions with the most votes.

The documentary pictures of the events could not only be found on flickr and other social media portals but also became part of the official ad campaign.

A great idea that sells, in the frist month of the campaign sales went up by 30%.

Unfortunately they don´t sponsor events in Germany.

Via Creativity Online

“We’re not trying to start brand democracy all of a sudden”

An interview with Christiane Wenhart, a partner at the Musiol Munzinger Sasserath management consultancy in Berlin, conducted by Ingeborg Trampe.

Mrs Wenhart: You have just completed a study on how young people make use of Web 2.0. Many marketing professionals are unsure as to how they should deal with Web 2.0. What have you learned from your study?

Our study was primarily focused on social networking sites, taking as a starting point those myths and half-truths which we are keen to dispel. For example, let’s take the notion that if you adapt a classic message and plant it as an idea, it will spread of its own accord like a wild-fire of recommendation on social networking sites.

In contrast, the facts show that brands are not yet an integral part of social networking sites and that their presence per se is irrelevant. Quite the opposite in fact: the obstacles that need to be overcome in order to “infiltrate” essentially private networks such as Facebook or SchülerVZ as an impersonal brand are considerably higher.

What is more, the real state of affairs is often considerably more complicated than is frequently assumed. There is no single definitive social networking site, there is in fact a whole plethora. They all serve a different set of needs and user motives, have different technical nuances and are continually developing, so that each social networking site needs to adapt in its own particular way going forward.

So what are the consequences?

This means it is of significant importance to grasp specific requirements as well as having insight. Brands must behave accordingly as an integral part of a social networking site, that is, they must foster and nuture a relationship. It is essentially an exchange, that is, brands must assimilate the relevant currency in order to make an interesting, useful and unique offer. In order to operate and communicate successfully, it is essential to be familiar with the specific context. And to maintain credibility, none of this should in any way contradict the offline-brand. The Burger King Sacrifice Action is a prime example of this: a scheme in which you would get 1 free Whopper in exchange for sacrificing 10 Facebook Friends. This was stopped after only 2 weeks on Facebook on account of its “success”.

It is also pivotal – and this is more of a corporate culture issue, as well as a problem which we feel is frequently underestimated – that brands are prepared to relinquish control. That means it is necessary to think in terms of specific scenarios, to be prepared for every eventuality (ranging from no reaction at all to extreme aversion) and then to react quickly and accordingly, whilst still maintaining control. Web 2.0 works within its own set of rules, which have to be respected.

But the good thing is that it is all Beta (this being in itself a brand new marketing concept, the aim so far always being a perfectly orchestrated end result.) Brands are able to try, test, and develop themselves further. Web 2.0 is dynamic, it thrives on new events and continuous dialogue with new brands.

Social networking sites have grown substantially over the last few years. Some customers describe them as “pure chat forums” where advertising makes no sense whatsoever, other companies seem hell-bent on being omnipresent. What is the right, or rather the recommended way forward?

The truth is that social networking sites are an integral part of life and they are here to stay. For young people especially they are an essential vehicle for socializing, as interaction on-line is now the norm. Keeping in touch via websites is now standard, and more and more communication is being channeled this way (especially in lieu of telephoning and emailing). The sites function as address books, quasi-public diary, photo-album, your own profile forges your identity, social arrangements are made, news and gossip are shared and some serious flirting goes on. That’s why you should neither ignore nor underestimate them. On the other hand you shouldn’t just jump on the band-wagon in a fit of zeal purely for the sake of it

But what does this actually mean for the company?

The most important thing is to take a good look at the social networking sites and to analyse your own company role internally, to engage in discussions with all relevant departments and, finally, to develop your own individual strategy as to how you will approach the issue in the short and medium term. And, above all, what to aim for, as the classic genre of “advertising” makes no real sense in this context. Corporate communications really have to take stock of this, but it could be that, besides marketing opportunites, it throws up excellent starting points for HR purposes, for distribution, research and development etc etc
In each case it is prudent to start off “passively”, i.e., to look at what is going within social networking sites, and, if appropriate, to see what happening with your own brand, assess what the competition is up to, and to gage what is successful and what isn’t, in order to develop a fundamental understanding. What is truly decisive here is that all participants do the trying and testing themselves as individuals.

This year there were “user-generated-spots” running for the first time for the likes of Dorito, which were unbelievably successful. The “Bild” newspaper also challenged its readers to dream up advertising campaigns. Do consumers really have better ideas than agencies? Or, in other words: Does the integration of consumer ideas mean greater success for the companies concerned?

I think the concept of “co-creation” is really amusing, because it often sounds like the companies get a real shock when they suddenly find out there’s life out there. The same applies to the agencies. What’s good about it is that this terribly mechanised image of the mindless “user” – in German we have this horrible expression ‘Verbraucher’ – (who, with his ”use” of goods and services generates revenues and subsequent profit) or the passive “message receiver” (who reacts to the incitement to buy by actively purchasing) is finally done away with.
Brands are part of our everyday life and it speaks volumes for the brand if there are people who will voluntarily take a closer look at a company and its products. And brands should definitely make use of this potential! Because integrating consumer ideas naturally leads to greater success – it always has done! Or is it not the case that the brands which are particularly successful take their customers into account, listen to them, understand them, in order to be able make them an offer of great relevance and ideally to play an important role in their in their lives, i.e. take long-term preference?

So the magic word is “dialogue”?

Exactly, it´s all about dialogue with the customers, the buyers, the users, the fans – and all that well away from the barren ground of conventional market research User-generated advertising is a facet here – “Bild” newspaper, in my opinion, sets a good example in how seriously it takes its customers – readers – and in how pro-actively it deals with user-generated content, thereby strengthening relations and establishing greater proximity to its readers, without ever becoming superfluous in itself: “Us for you” and “you for us” in perfect harmony, which strengthens the brand even more.

It is practically impossible nowadays for companies to maintain their brand sovereignty. How can marketers still manage to steer at the helm of their brands?

The subjects of “social web-fascism” and “Dictatorship of Mediocracy” are hot topics for discussion, if you interpret the “power of the masses” negatively, that is. But in my opinion the real challenge for companies lies in striking the correct balance between employee participation and control.
I think Apple is a great example of this. The company manages to be totally dictatorial (who for instance is allowed to make suggestions regarding product design or hanker after particular colors) – whilst at the same time mobilizing its followers to such a degree of participation that they voluntarily take on functions which would normally be company’s domain, for example in the realm of support. Even sundry Mashups and the flood of I-Games don’t pose any threat in terms of diluting the brand, but are actually a warm compliment which only serves to strengthen the brand and its mythology.
So it’s not a case of suddenly introducing brand democracy (which might work for amusing Australian beers or other such niches), nor of enforcing manic control. A strong brand is always authoritative and the art lies in being able to recognize and define the fine line between where absolute control is a must-have and recognizing where it is more prudent to allow freedom.

Many thanks for the interview

Thanks to Ingeborg Trampe for this guest post and if you like some more ideas and insights about brands in the digital age visit the Musiol Munzinger Sasserath Blog.

Jolie O’Dell talks to Bob Nanna of Threadless on using social media to create a brand-lovin’ community.

Threadless is a fascinating company. Their whole business model is based on the thought of ‘community creation’ -  people can submit their designs and vote for the ones they like best.

Social Media is build in their DNA, but the folks at Threadless have also proven that they understand how to use it, from CRM via Twitter to Facebook live video contests.

Another great example for embracing online enthusiasts are their ‘Twitter Tees by Threadless.‘ :

The media aspect of social offers some exciting opportunities for brands, but the potential of the social web can be significantly greater if the power of community is fully realised.

Via: Sebastian Garn, Nick Burcher &  Read Write Web

But social media is much more than just a new tool for marketers, it can actually improve your business and turn your whole organization upside down.

A great example on how a company can adopt and embrace social media is Best Buy. The retailer is using it to create connections between their employees, and help them to collaborate and share their knowledge.

It works. The usage of these tools have an huge impact on the customer buying experience and sales plus the participation also motivates their staff.

Best Buy social media case study:

Best Buy CEO Brad Anderson in conversation with Peter Hirshberg at Google Zeitgeist from peter hirshberg on Vimeo.

Via: Socialmedia Today

From the past to the future Best Buy CMO Barry Judge tells the story of how Best Buy’s Marketing Capability talks (and listens) to its customers.
I really like their approach to help people to realize their “dreams”. Why? Because they focus on their customers instead of promoting themselves or their prices.
They also let them participate in their marketing decisions, for example they show unfinished ads and ask people for their opinions. For me the proof that even a huge retailers like Best Buy can participate in social media and join the conversation.

Let´s see if others like Media Markt or Saturn in Germany will get it too.